Loading judgment…

SATYAJIT MUNDA,MAYURBHANJ vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA | BharatTax

SATYAJIT MUNDA,MAYURBHANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA

ITA 816/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal for the AY 2014-15 due to a delay of 792 days. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the case and the Assessing Officer also passed an ex-parte order.

Held

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicality, especially in cases of limitation. They condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

Key Issues

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits.

Sections Cited

Income Tax Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Shri Deba Prasad Mishra, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR

Hearing: 25/02/2026Pronounced: 25/02/2026

Assessee represented by Shri Deba Prasad Mishra, 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/2013-14/10383818 dated 30/10/2025 for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

Shri Deba Prasad Mishra, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

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 792 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 the submission that the Assessing Officer has also passed assessment Satyajit Munda Vs ITO 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).

4.

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.

5.

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 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 Satyajit Munda Vs ITO 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.10,000/-(Rupees Ten 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 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.