Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5977 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-07-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
05-05-2024
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Sarat Kumar Patel, Naksapali Kirmira, Laikera Bagdehi Naksapali, Dist: Jharsuguda PAN/GIR No (Appellant This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 17/10106076 2. Shri P.K.Mishra S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. 3. The appeal is delayed by 193 condonation petition dated 4.7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ’SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL ITA No.216/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarat Kumar Patel, Naksapali Kirmira, Laikera Bagdehi Naksapali, Dist: Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi PAN/GIR No.AIBPP 3360 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Date of Hearing : 08/0 Date of Pronouncement : 08/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 25.8.2023 in Appeal No. for the assessment year 2017-18. P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. The appeal is delayed by 193 days. The assessee has file condonation petition dated 4.7.2024 supported by affidavit Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi Respondent) P.K.Mishra, Adv : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR 07/2024 /07/2024 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal No.NFAC/2016- the assessee and Shri days. The assessee has filed .2024 supported by affidavit and medical ITA No.216/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 4 certificate, stating that even though the order of the ld CIT(A) was received on 27.8.2023 but by during the said time, the assessee was seriously suffered from Lumbar radiculopathy, which is a never root problem in the lower back, causes symptoms of severe pain or irritation in the back and down the legs and had undergone medical treatment for a longer time and was advised complete bed rest. The assessee had no knowledge about passing of this order, as such, he could not file the appeal within the due date. It was in this backdrop that there was delay of 193 days in filing of the present appeal. This contention of the assessee has not been found to be false. Consequently, we condone the delay of 193 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has passed order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He submitted that the Assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s.144B r.w.s 147 of the Act. He prayed to remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration of the issues in this appeal. 5. In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) in response to notice, the assessee had made submissions. The ld CIT(A) has observed that as the assessee had not furnished substantial evidence in support of the claim of in ITA No.216/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 4 respect of purchase of property, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Even before the ld CIT(A), the assessee failed to give satisfactory explanation of the investment made in the said property. Now, ld AR has undertaken before us that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would be in a position to file the documentary evidences in support of the claim before the Assessing officer. We also find that the assessment in this case has been passed u/s.144B r.w.s 147 of the Act due to non-representation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 08/07/2024. Sd/- (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 08/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.216/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant Dilip Kumar Jana, At-95, Station Bazar, Village-Mill Bardi, PO/PS: Jaleswar, Dist: Balasore 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2, Balasore 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
Mehul