Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2020-21 and AY 2016-17. The appeal for AY 2016-17 was delayed by 235 days, which was condoned. The assessee claimed that it did not provide all details to the Assessing Officer and requested the matter be restored.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to lack of relevant documents and failure to produce evidence as required by the AO. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be admitted despite the delay and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication due to non-production of evidence by the assessee.
Sections Cited
IT Act
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 K.C. Jena, A.R. Department represented by Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 19/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10191047 dated 13/02/2024 for the A.Y. 2020-21 and in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10167056 dated 08/01/2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17 respectively.
Shri K.C. Jena, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR with Shri Vijay Singh, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. of the assessee is delayed by 235 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 & 650/Ctk/2025 Mayurbhanj Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs ITO found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 235 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 assessee has not provided all the details before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the voluminous details had been given, admittedly, there is failure on the part of the assessee to provide all the details before the Assessing Officer. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeals afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld. Departmental Representatives 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 both the appeals.
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 Assessing Officer and in absence of the same, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in both the appeals 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 Mayurbhanj Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs ITO course of assessment proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, we impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five Thousand only) each in both the appeals, 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 costs 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, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/02/2026.