DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CON. EAST COAST RAILWAY,JAJPUR vs. ITO, WARD TDS, CUTTACK

It was submitted by the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative that this is a case of absolute non-representation before the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is also delayed by 2753 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). the ld. CIT-DR submitted that in the application for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A), it was only mentioned that “the appellant was unknown and not aware for appeal of TDS return as a deductor within prescribed time. So delay in appeal, kindly consider and take for necessary process”. It was the submission that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed on the ground of condonation. It was the submission that at this point, it was told to the ld. CIT-DR that in the interest of justice, the issues are required to be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication. It was then submitted by to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative that if the issues are being restored to the file of the ld. CIT-(A), then exemplary cost must be levied.

We have considered the 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. 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 appeals, 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 he 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 subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 100/- (Rs. Hundred only) to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack-753014 within 60 days from the date of this order. Liberty is granted to the assessee to recover the said cost from the employee responsible for the failure to comply with the notices and delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Now we take up appeals in to 796/Ctk/2025 for the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2017-18. In these appeals also, there are delay in filing of appeals before the Tribunal and also the delay in filing of appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Since we have condoned the delay in filing appeal in ITA to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO No. 780/Ctk/2025 before Tribunal, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, we condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. In these appeals also, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Since, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal in and restored the appeal to the ld. CIT(A), and on similar ground, following the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, the delay in filing these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) are also condoned and all these appeals of the assessee are also restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits subject to cost of Rs.100/-(Rupees hundred only) per appeal payable to ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack within 60 days from the date of this order. Liberty is granted to the assessee to recover the said cost from the employee responsible for the failure to comply with the notices and delay in filing of appeals before the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2026.