DEEPA PRAJAPATI,SUNDERGARH V. ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA

ITA 134/CTK/2026

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Deepa Prajapati against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed her appeal due to an 88-day delay in filing. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer was also contested as it was conducted ex parte without a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal found that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities such as limitation and decided to condone the delay and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, provided the assessee cooperates and pays the imposed cost.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842297 (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: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2026
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard

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. 134/CTK/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deepa Prajapati, Prajapati Bhawan, Main Road, Raurkela, Sundergarh, Sundergarh-769001 (Odisha) PAN No. AARPP 6708 R Vs. Assessing Officer, Raurkela. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Chitrasen Parida, 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 the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10335796 dated 19/01/2026 for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 88 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the merit of the case. It was also the submission that the Assessing Officer has also passed assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 134/Ctk/2026 Deepa Prajapati Vs AO 2 order ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit after condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate her claim. 4. In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). However, it was submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that if the issues are being restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, then exemplary cost must be levied. 5. We have considered the rival 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. We also found that the Assessing Officer has also passed ex parte assessment order. 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 appeal, 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 it 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. It is noticed from the order of the Assessing Officer that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 134/Ctk/2026 Deepa Prajapati Vs AO 3 relevant documents. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and also directed to provide all the relevant documents and evidences as required by the Assessing Officer. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands 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-mentioned cost within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. 6. In the result, this 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 134/Ctk/2026 Deepa Prajapati Vs AO 4 Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "