ODISHA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary details to support their claims.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were filed with significant delays, which were condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing adequate opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and if the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.”
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).
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026.
More judgments on Section 80P(2)
- The Mrutyunjaya Large Size Co Operative… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PalakolITA 839/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2022-23
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2299/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2020-21
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2298/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2018-19
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2297/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2017-18
- Mumbai Vidi Tambakhu Vyapari Sahakari… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)(2), Piramal…ITA 1801/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 May 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kavya Shrivastava vs. Hdfc Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Gaurav Jewellers Through Proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya vs. Branch Manager Yes Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Kavya Shrivastava vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026