BARAPALI SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BARGARH vs. ITO, BARGARH WARD, BARGARH

Shri Niranjan Kedia, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. for the A.Y. 2021-22 of the assessee is delayed by approximately 19 months. In this regard, the assessee has 106 & 107/Ctk/2026 Barpali Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs NFAC filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 142 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the merit of the case. It was also the submission that the Assessing Officer has also passed assessment order ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit after condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). However, it was submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that if the issues are being restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, then exemplary cost must be levied.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay and without considering 106 & 107/Ctk/2026 Barpali Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs NFAC the merit of the case. We also found that the Assessing Officer has also passed ex parte assessment order. When substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of the substantial justice. By not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee but by condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, the assessee would also know what is the mistakes that it has committed. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. It is noticed from the order of the Assessing Officer that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and also directed to provide all the relevant documents and evidences as required by the Assessing Officer. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, we impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) on the assessee, as admitted by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack-753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same 106 & 107/Ctk/2026 Barpali Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs NFAC would be produced before the AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned cost within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Now we take up appeals in & 107/Ctk/2026 for the A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2015-16. In these appeals also, there are delay of approximately 19 months in filing of appeals before the Tribunal and also the delay in filing of appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Since we have condoned the delay in filing appeal in for the A.Y. 2021-22 before this Tribunal, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, we condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. In these appeals also, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Since, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in for the A.Y. 2021-22 and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits. On similar grounds, following the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, the delay in filing these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) are also condoned and both these appeals of the assessee are also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- 106 & 107/Ctk/2026 Barpali Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs NFAC (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each per appeal payable to ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack within 60 days from the date of this order. Liberty is granted to the assessee to recover the said cost from the employee responsible for the failure to comply with the notices and delay in filing of appeals before the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/02/2026.