ODISHA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), BHUBANESWAR
Facts
The assessee's appeals were barred by time for multiple assessment years. The assessee claimed the orders were not received in time. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee requested the matter to be restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT DR did not object. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not provided complete details to the CIT(A) in previous years. Therefore, following a similar order for AY 2017-18, the appeals were restored to the file of CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and whether the appeals should be restored to CIT(A) for readjudication.
Sections Cited
80P(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 27.9.2023, 13.6.2025, 23.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal Nos. CIT(A),Bhubaneswar-2/10313/2018-19, NFAC/2017- 18/10078726, NFAC/2019-20/10200142 and NFAC/2021-22/10378852 for the assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2022-23, respectively. 2. Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 3. At the outset, it is found that the appeals of the assessee are barred by 800 days, 159 days, 340 days and 340 days for the assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2022-23, respectively. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petitions with affidavits stating that since the orders passed
2 ITA N2.123 to 126/CTK/2026
by the ld CIT(A) were not received by the assessee, the appeals could not be filed within due date. The above contentions of the assessee are not found to be false. Ld. CIT DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee is condoned and the appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that in all the assessment years, the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals without providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee to represent the matter. It was the submission that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and the assessee will furnish the complete details. Ld AR also placed a copy of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2017-18 in ITA No.204/CTK/2022 dated 28.11.2023, wherein, on similar facts, the order of the ld CIT(A) has been restored to his file for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunities of being heard. 5. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee is trading & marketing of handloom items and was not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act, insofar as it has not employed any labour. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2017-18(supra), wherein, the Tribunal has observed as under: “4. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that only part of the details as called for by the ld CIT(A)has been submitted by the assessee. Thus, justice should not only be done, it should also be seen to be done. This being so, as admittedly, the assessee has not provided
3 ITA N2.123 to 126/CTK/2026
all the details as called for by the ld CIT(A), in the interest of natural justice, issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunities of being heard.” 7. Admittedly, in all these years also, the assessee has not furnished the complete details before the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Therefore, similar in line with the direction given for the assessment year 2017-18(supra), we restore all the appeals to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the details in support of the claim before the ld CIT(A). 8. In the result, appeals of the assessee are 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 �दनांक Dated 25/02/2026 Amit Ranjan, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent- ITO, 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), NFAC Delhi 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack
