Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16. The appeals were delayed by 361 days. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without sufficient opportunity and evidence. The revenue supported the lower authorities' orders.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 361 days, considering the reasons provided and lack of objection from the revenue. The issues were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are to be admitted after condonation of delay, and whether the issues should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
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 P.K. Mishra, A.R. Department represented by Shri Vijay Singh Kiroriwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2026 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 dated 14/11/2024, 13/11/2024 and 08/09/2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 respectively. All the appeals have identical facts and grounds, therefore, all these appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order. Firstly, we take up the appeal in for the A.Y. 2013-14 as a lead case.
Shri P.K. Mishra, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh Kiroriwal, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 361 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 to 82/Ctk/2026 Pravakar Patra Vs ITO appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 361 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 Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee has not produced sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer and before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issue is to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then a cost should be imposed.
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 ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has passed assessment order ex parte. It was submitted by the ld. AR that he will provide all the details and evidences before the Assessing Officer, this being so, in the interest to 82/Ctk/2026 Pravakar Patra Vs ITO of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer by producing all the details and evidences as are required in support of the claim.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Now we take up appeals in to 82/Ctk/2025 for the A.Y. 2013- 14 to 2015-16. In these appeals also, there are also delay in filing of appeals before the Tribunal. Since we have condoned the delay in filing appeal in before the Tribunal and restored the issues back to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, we also condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal and also restore these appeals back to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication the issues. 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.