MRS. MANJULATA BARIK,BHADRAK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

ITA 238/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Manjulata Barik Patharadi, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had dismissed her appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution. The primary issue arose from the assessee's failure to explain the source of substantial cash deposits made during the demonetization period in 2016, leading to an assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a determined income of Rs.14,34,640. The CIT(Appeals) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee to present her case, which were not utilized, resulting in the ex-parte dismissal. The ITAT, after considering the circumstances and the principles of natural justice, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705440 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: B.R.PANDA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE SHRI AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Manjulata Barik Patharadi , Charampa, Bhadrak 756101 PAN/GIR No. AYZPB (Appellant The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023 Assessment Year 2. The appeal is time barred by assessee before the Tribunal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.238/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 arampa, Bhadrak Vs. ITO, Ward Bhadrak, Bhadrak AYZPB 3308 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30 /06/202 Date of Pronouncement : 30 06//202 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/105593926(1) Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal is time barred by 446 days in filing the appeal by the before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition P a g e 1 | 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward Bhadrak, Bhadrak Respondent) S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR /2025 /2025 The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless 11/09/2023 INN passed for days in filing the appeal by the condonation petition ITA No.238/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 2 | 5 dated 18.4.2025 supported by affidavit, dated 23rd April, 2025 stating that the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been served on the appellant through post and due to health problems, the assessee was frequently under treatment and not able to consult the advocate about the first appellate proceeding. It is stated that the email and mobile number of her tax consultant were registered with I.T.Department, hence, the assessee was under bona fide belief that her tax consultant was taking proper care of her tax matters but the counsel did not take any step to file response, which resulted the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. When the assessee came to know about the penalty order u/s.270A of the Act, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to above fact that there was a delay of 446 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 446 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the during the year under consideration, the assessee has deposited huge cash in the account in oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhadrak, which includes cash deposit of Rs.15,16,000/- during demonetisation period i.e. 9th Nov to 30th December, ITA No.238/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 3 | 5 2016. As the assesse was unable to explain the source of cash deposit, the Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act determining the total income at Rs.14,34,640/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. 7. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. AO for deciding it afresh. 8. At the outset, ld. D.R. invited to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act assessing the taxable income at Rs.14,34,638/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written ITA No.238/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 4 | 5 submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 9. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30 06//2025. Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack: Dated 30/06/2025 ITA No.238/CTK/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 5 | 5 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Asst.Registrar, Itat, cuttack 1. The Appellant : Manjulata Barik Patharadi , Charampa, Bhadrak 756101 2. The Respondent : ITO, Ward Bhadrak, Bhadrak 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, 4. Pr.CIT-Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "