PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed multiple appeals against orders of the CIT(A) concerning quantum assessments and penalties for assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals without condoning significant delays (ranging from 432 to 440 days) in filing them and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee contended that delays were due to his wife's serious illness and non-receipt of hard copies of orders, and that some additions were made inappropriately, treating contractual receipts as non-disclosure despite being included in turnover and TDS claimed.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals without condoning significant delays and without providing an opportunity of hearing. 2. Whether the quantum additions and penalties imposed were sustainable given the assessee's explanations and circumstances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 270A of the Act, Section 271AAC(1) of the Act, Section 271A of the Act, Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, Section 147 of the Act, Section 144 of the Act, Section 143(3) of the Act, Section 154 of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (13 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 201 2017-18 No.23/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2017 2017-18 ITA No. ITA No.24/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 201 2017-18 ITA No. ITA No.25/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 201 2017-18 ITA No. ITA No.26/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2018 2018-19 ITA No. ITA No.27/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2018 2018-19 ITA No. ITA No.28/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2018 2018-19 ITA No. ITA No.29/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 20 2020-21 ITA No. ITA No.30/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 20 2020-21 ITA No.
Assessment Year : 2020 2020-21 No.32/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2020 2020-21 No.35/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2019 2019-20 ITA No. ITA No.57/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 20 2020-21 Pratap Chandra Sahoo, At: Pratap Chandra Sahoo, At: Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Asst. Commissioner of Income Babuganj Bazar, PO: Chhatia, Babuganj Bazar, PO: Chhatia, Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack Dist: Jajpur PAN/GIR No.AHJPS 7660 J AHJPS 7660 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent)
Assessee by Assessee by : S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena/Narahari Swain ena/Narahari Swain, Advs Revenue by Revenue by : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Date of Hearing : 22 /01/20 2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22/01/20 025
P a g e 1 | 11 Bhubaneswar-2/10526/2016-17 for the assessment year 2017-18 and in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11324/2017-18 for the assessment year 2018-19 and in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10486/2019-20 for the assessment year 2020-2021 in the matter of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. and are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2 dated 30.11.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10525/2016-17 for the assessment year 2017-18 and in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11325/2017-18 for the assessment year 2018-19 and in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10484/2019-20 and in Appeal No.(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10484/2019-20 for the assessment year 2020-2021 in the matter of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act.
30.11.2024 of ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Bhubaneswar-2/10487/2019-20 for the assessment year 2020- 2021 in the matter of penalty u/s.271 A of the Act.
S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himanshu Jena and Narahari Swain, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, ld CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 3 | 11
For that, when the reassessment proceeding was going on during the Corona pandemic and the Appellant, on account of serious illness of his wife could not comply and additions were made for want of explanation and evidences, the learned CIT(Appeal) should have allowed sufficient opportunity or should have set aside the issues back to the file of the learned A.O., but in the present case, he dismissed the appeal of the Appellant as such, order passed by both authorities, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of Justice.
6. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in confirming the addition made by the learned A.O. of contractual receipts received by the Appellant of Rs.4,56,255.00, treating it as non-disclosure of receipts, particularly when, the said receipts were included in the gross turnover disclosed by the Appellant in his return of income and TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice.
For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income at Rs.99,55,780.00 against the returned income of Rs.33,07,700.00, by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as such, all additions made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 8. For that, the Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to urge other grounds of appeal
, if any, at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.
8. Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in penalty appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in are reproduced hereunder:
“1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 440 days in filing of appeal and in confirming the penalty order passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, by the learned A.O., particularly when, the Appellant has cited sufficient reasons and reasonable ground for condonation of delay. As such, both the orders
P a g e 5 | 11 therefore, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and the AO was made on gross violation of principles of natural justice. The AR emphasized that the assessee was willing to pursue the appeals and requested that the matter be restored to the file of the AO and the assessee may be given an opportunity to produce the submission of evidence supporting the claim.
It was submitted by ld AR in regard to penalty orders u/s.270A for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21, there was delay of 432 days, 436 days and 432 days in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A).
In regard to penalty orders u/s.271AAC(1) for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21, there was delay of 432 days 436 days and 432 days in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A).
In regard to penalty orders u/s.272A(1)(d) for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2020-21, there was delay of 432 days and 433 days in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A).
In regard to penalty imposed u/s.271A of the Act, there was delay of 432 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-21.
It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty orders were uploaded in the departmental portal, but the hard copies of the same were never supplied
P a g e 7 | 11 condonation of delay. The orders have been uploaded in the I.T. portal and the assessee was not vigilant to its tax matters.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the quantum appeals for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 have been passed without condoning the delay and also without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessment orders have been passed u/s.147/144/143(3)/154 of the Act due to non-compliance of the notices issued by the AO. Even though specific reasons were cited by the assessee with evidence for condonation of delay, the ld CIT(A) has not considered the same and dismissed the appeals by not condoning the delay. Now, the ld AR has prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee will produce all the relevant documents and evidences in support of its claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the issues in the quantum appeals as stated above are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Furthermore, the penalty orders were confirmed by the ld CIT(A) without condoning the delay. The assessee had furnished the plausible cause that although the penalty orders were uploaded by the department in the Portal but same were not sent through postal or email and as the P a g e 9 | 11
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22 /01/2025. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 22/01/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Pratap Chandra Sahoo, At: Babuganj Bazar, PO: Chhatia, Dist: Jajpur 2. The Respondent: Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, CUTTACK
P a g e 11 | 11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
