APARNA PRADHAN,GOVIND RESIDENCY, KIIT ROAD, BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO KENDDRAPADA WARD,, KENDRAPADA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 800/CTK/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Aparna Pradhan, I.T.O., Flat No. 308, Govind Residency, KHT Kenddrapada Ward. Vs. Road, Bhubaneswar-751024 (Odisha) PAN No. BLWPP 3485 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri K.K. Bal, 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 an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10492603 dated 01/09/2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Shri K.K. Bal, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 30 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with 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

ITA No. 800/Ctk/2025 Aparna Pradhan Vs ITO of 30 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee has not produced sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer and before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate her claim. 5. In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issue is to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A), then a cost should be imposed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its 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. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. This is the second round of litigation. It seems the habit of getting ex parte matters. Therefore, looking to the continuous non-cooperation of the assessee

ITA No. 800/Ctk/2025 Aparna Pradhan Vs ITO during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand 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 would be produced before the ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 25/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack