Sri Kailash Chandra Thatoi, Pabitradiha V. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

ITA 434/CTK/2019

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sri Kailash Chandra Thatoi against the order of the CIT(A), Cuttack, dated 29.5.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was filed due to a significant delay of 1584 days, attributed to miscommunication between the assessee and his auditor. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the submission of fresh evidences, which led to the decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Tribunal also considered the need to impose a cost on the assessee to emphasize the importance of being conscious of tax notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300378 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND Sri Kailash Chandra Thatoi, At:Pabitradiha, Keonjhargarh, Keonjhar PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga CIT(A), Cuttack assessment year 2. Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK (Through virtual hearing) BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.434/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 ri Kailash Chandra Thatoi, Pabitradiha, Keonjhargarh, Keonjhar Vs. DCIT, Circle Cuttack PAN/GIR No.ABLPT 0358 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 26 /0 Date of Pronouncement : 26 /0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Cuttack dated 29.5.2015 in Appeal No.059/2014 assessment year 2011-12. Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle -1(1), Respondent) B.R.Panda, AR S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR 06/2023 /06/2023 inst the order of the ld No.059/2014-15 for the Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri ITA No.434/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Page2 | 4 3. It was submitted by ld AR that on account of mis-communication between the assessee and his auditor, there was delay of 1584 days in filing of the appeal. It was the further submission that on account of this mis- communication also, substantial details, which ought to have been produced before the lower authorities, had not been produced. It was the prayer that the assessee has produced the evidences before the Tribunal. It was the prayer that the issues in the appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in the interest of justice. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the delay should not be condoned. It was the submission that should the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, cost must be imposed on the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The affidavit filed by the assessee in respect of the delay shows that the assessee was working as a Sr. Manager,in SAL Steel ltd., at Gandhi Nagar of Gujarat. The order of the ld CIT(A) seems to have been received by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee at Cuttack. The order of the ld CIT(A) shows that none of the evidences have been produced before him nor before the Assessing Officer in respect of the various additions, which have resulted in the assessment order. A perusal of the paper book filed shows that substantial number of evidences produced before the Tribunal is in the form of fresh evidences. This being so, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that delays in filing of the appeal by the assessee is liable to be condoned insofar as the ITA No.434/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Page3 | 4 affidavit filed by the assessee has not been found to be false. As the assessee has produced the fresh evidences which were not before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Further, it is also directed that the submissions of ld Sr DR also carry weight insofar as the assessee should have been conscious in respect of tax notices. In these circumstances, it is directed that the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.1000/- under the head “others” and produce the challan before the Assessing Officer during the course of set aside assessment. The assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of the cost of Rs.1000/- as tax, interest or penalty, in any of the assessment years. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26/06/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.434/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Sri Kailash Chandra Thatoi, At:Pabitradiha, Keonjhargarh, Keonjhar 2. The respondent:DCIT, Circle -1(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//