CHARAN BEHERA,PURI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

ITA 132/CTK/2026

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Charan Behera, a retired Principal from Kaniha Degree College, against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, concerning an exparte assessment under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 667 days in filing, without sufficient cause or supporting documents to explain the delay. The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that every day's delay need not be explained in a pedantic manner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842295 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.132 /CTK/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Charan Behera, At-Kantamunduli, Sisua, Astaranga, Puri PAN No.AHTPBA 6079 J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Angul Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri P.K.Mishra, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR Date of hearing 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 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/2015-16/10545534 dated 31/01/2026 for the A.Y. 2016-17, in the matter of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a retired Principal in Kaniha Degree College, Kaniha. It was the submission that the assessment order of the Assessing Officer was an exparte assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 667 days in filing the appeal on the ground that the assessee has neither filed any Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.132 /Ctk/2026 2 separate affidavit nor produced any supporting documents to substantiate the claim regarding the date of service or to explain the cause of delay. It was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the ld CIT (A) is justified in dismissing the appeal on account of delay as no proper petition was filed for condoning the delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. It was the claim that the assessee has already been retired from the service on 31.1.2018 and no assessment order has been received. Only when the assessee came to know about the demand from the bank authority about his account attachment, he has filed the appeal before the ld CIT(A). By not filing the appeal, the assessee would not get any benefit or advantage, rather he will suffer financially. In this regard, we may make reference to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353, wherein, it has been held as under: “. 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. \"Every day's delay must be explained\" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.132 /Ctk/2026 3 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6. Considering the facts of the case, we condone the delay of 667 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the order of the ld AO was an exparte assessment, we restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack, Dated: 25/02/2026 *Ranjan, Sr. PS Copy to: 1. Assessee – Charan Behera, Puri 2. Revenue- Income Tax officer, Angul 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "