DILIP KUMAR PRAMALIK,CDA,BIDANASI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), AAYAKARKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHHAK

ITA 105/CTK/2026

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Dilip Kumar Pramalik, the proprietor of Ananda Jewellers, against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal ex-parte for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 608 days, for which a condonation application was filed and accepted. The main contention was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the CIT(A) due to the absence of necessary documents and evidence to substantiate the claims made. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate and provide the required evidence this time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837512 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2026
• 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. 105/CTK/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dilip Kumar Pramalik, Prop.-Ananda Jewellers, Head Office at Plot No. D/354, Sec.-06, CDA,. P.O. Bidanasi, Dist.- Cuttack-753014 (Odisha) PAN No. ADIPP 9909 J Vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Cuttack. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Syed Bakiullah, A.R. 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. CIT(A), Cuttack/10721/2019-20 dated 02/02/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Shri Syed Bakiullah, ld. A.R. is appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld. Sr. DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 608 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 608 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 105/Ctk/2026 Dilip Kr. Pramalik Vs DCIT 2 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. CIT(A) 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.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen 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 ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 105/Ctk/2026 Dilip Kr. Pramalik Vs DCIT 3 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. 7. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 17/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee - Dilip Kumar Pramalik, Prop.-Ananda Jewellers, Head Office at Plot No. D/354, Sec.-06, CDA,. P.O. Bidanasi, Dist.- Cuttack-753014. 2. Revenue- DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "