Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 138 days, for which a condonation application was filed and accepted. The assessee's claim was dismissed by the AO and CIT(A) ex-parte due to lack of substantiating documents.
Held
The Tribunal accepted the delay condonation and restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be admitted after a significant delay and if the matter can be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
Assessee represented by Shri Manoranjan Behera, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10263980 dated 23/05/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
Shri Manoranjan Behera, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 138 days. In this regard, the assessee has 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 Subash Kumar Sahoo Vs CIT(A) of 138 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate his claim.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issues are to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then cost should be imposed in the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate his claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 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 ld. A.O. we impose a cost of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousands only) on the assessee, as admitted by the ld. A.R.
Subash Kumar Sahoo Vs CIT(A) 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 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. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026.