Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 267 days and the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee prayed for the matter to be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 267 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. However, a cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay and restoration of appeal 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 J.M. Pattanaik, Adv. Department represented by Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 17/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10246945 dated 12/02/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
Shri J.M. Pattanaik, ld. A.R. is appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld. Sr. DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 267 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 found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 267 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
Kadambala Harischandra Choudhury Vs ITO 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 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. This being so, in the interest 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. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) 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- Kadambala Harischandra Choudhury Vs ITO 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, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2026.