Dilip Karamakar, Cuttack V. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

ITA 194/CTK/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Dilip Karmakar, against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, for the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was initially delayed by 30 days due to the illness of an associate of the dealing counsel, which was supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal found the reason for the delay reasonable and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The primary grievance of the assessee was the exparte disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A), who had decided the case based on the material on record as the assessee did not respond to the notices. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not well-versed with electronic gadgets and had issues accessing notices through the ITBA portal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300421 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SWANAY MOHANTY
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Dilip Karmakar, At/PO: Kaligali, Chandinichowk, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 17 for the assessment year 2. Shri Swanay Mohanty, ld Advocate from the office of Shri Ambica Prasad Mohanty, CA appeared for the assessee and DR appeared for the revenue. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 30 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.194/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dilip Karmakar, At/PO: Kaligali, Chandinichowk, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AGDPK 0470 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Swanay Mohanty Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty Date of Hearing : 18/07 Date of Pronouncement : 18/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Bhubaneswar dated 6.2.2023 in Appeal No. for the assessment year 2015-16. Shri Swanay Mohanty, ld Advocate from the office of Shri Ambica Prasad Mohanty, CA appeared for the assessee and Sri S.C.Mohanty, DR appeared for the revenue. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 30 days. The has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER AND WAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Central Circle, Respondent) Swanay Mohanty, AR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 7/2023 /07/2023 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal No.Cuttack/10510/2016- Shri Swanay Mohanty, ld Advocate from the office of Shri Ambica Sri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 30 days. The has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the ITA No.194/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page2 | 4 reason for delay in filing the appeal that due to outstation assignment, the dealing counsel for the assessee had assigned the matter to one associate, who fell sick and remained leave till 20 th April, 2023. It was in this backdrop that the appeal could not be filed in due time. Ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intention but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation petition. 4. After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order exparte without hearing the assessee. ld AR submits that the assessee was not well versed with the electronic gadgets and could not find out the notices issued to him. The notices were allegedly issued only through ITBA portal. Ld AR submits that he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be vigilant in future and to make proper compliance of the notices and will not default in future for the purpose of service of notices through ITBA portal. 6. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that several opportunities were afforded to the assessee but the assessee did not bother to respond the notices issued by ld CIT(A). ITA No.194/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page3 | 4 7. We have considered the rival submissions. The limited grievance of the assessee is against exparte disposal of the appeal by the ld CIT(A). It was the submission by the ld CIT(A) that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee in hearing of the appeal. Perusal of the impugned order shows that four opportunities have been granted to the assessee but the assessee has not filed any written submission to explain his contention taken in the grounds of appeal, therefore, the ld CIT(A) had no option but to decide the appeal on the basis of material on record. As the assessee has not furnished any documents in support of the contention, therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the ld CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of ld CIT(A) and restore the issues back to him for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we also direct the assessee to cooperate the ld CIT(A) in finalization of the appellate proceedings. With these observations, the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld CIT(A). 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2023. (Girish Agrawal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18/07/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.194/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the OS 9. Date on which file goes to the SPS 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 1. The Appellant Dilip Karmakar, At/PO: Kaligali, Chandinichowk, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: ITO, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//