TIRUPATI PRASAD SAHU, RAYAGADA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAYAGADA WARD

ITA 184/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6379 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Tirupati Prasad Sahu, Rayagada PAN/GIR No (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 27.2.2024 10/10216527 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Dass, Sr.DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 145 days before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has also IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.184/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Tirupati Prasad Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rayagada PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Revenue by : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Date of Hearing : 24/0 Date of Pronouncement : 24/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 27.2.2024 in Appeal No. for the assessment year 2010-2011 P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri appeared for the revenue. It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 145 days before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has also recognized that there was a confusion in regard to Page1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2011 Income Tax Officer, Respondent) P.K.Mishra, Adv : Shri Charan Dass, Sr DR 06/2024 /06/2024 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal No.NFAC/2009- the assessee and Shri Charan It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 145 days before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld recognized that there was a confusion in regard to ITA No.184/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page2 | 3 mentioning of date of the order being 22.7.2022 and 22.9.2022. The reasons given for the delay was that the assessee did not receive the order of the Assessing Officer in time. Ld CIT(A) has also recognized that the ITBA system shows that the order u/s.154 of the Act is dated 27.9.2022 and was served through e-mail of the assessee. It was the submission that the issue is in regard to claim of depreciation. It was the submission that in any case even the depreciation is not claimed by the assessee, the depreciation is liable to be allowed as per the statute itself whether the assessee claims or not. It was the submission that on mere technicality, on appeal before the ld CIT(A), substantial justice should not be denied. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the facts in the present case, we are seized of many cases where assessee mistakenly did not receive the orders sent through email as many of these orders are going to span folders. In any case, there is a delay of 145 days. This being so, considering the explanation given by the assessee, we are of the view that the explanation is a possible explanation and consequently, we condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). We are not giving any findings on merits of the case insofar as the ld CIT(A) has not given any findings on merits. This being so, we restore the issue in ITA No.184/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page3 | 3 the appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/06/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 24/06/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Tirupati Prasad Sahu, Rayagada 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Rayagada 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Berhampur 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//