PRASANTA KUMAR PANDA,PHULABANI V. ITO, WARD PHULBANI, PHULABANI

ITA 20/CTK/2026

AI Insights

The case involves appeals filed by Prasanta Kumar Panda against the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals were consolidated due to identical facts and grounds. The primary contention was the dismissal of the assessee's appeals by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for lack of sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunity to present his case and decided to restore the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, provided the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 15,000 for each appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841021 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2026
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 20, 29 & 30/CTK/2026 (Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Prasanta Kumar Panda, S/o- Gadadhar Panda, Khajuripada, Khajuripada, Khandhamal-762012 (Odisha) PAN No. AOKPP 4235 Q Vs. I.T.O., Ward-Phulbani, Phulbani. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Manoranjan Behera, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi all dated 04/06/2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16, A.T. 2016- 17 and A.Y. 2017-18 respectively. All the appeals have identical facts and grounds, therefore, all these appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order. Firstly, we take up the appeal in ITA No. 20/Ctk/2026 for the A.Y. 2015-16 as a lead case. 2. Shri Manoranjan Behera, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 1 year 5 months and 3 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr.DR did not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 20, 29 & 30/Ctk/2026 Prasanta Kr. Panda Vs ITO 2 object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee has not produced sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer and before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim. 5. In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issue is to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then a cost should be imposed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was submitted by the ld. AR that he will provide all the details and evidences before the Assessing Officer, this being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of Jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate his case. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 20, 29 & 30/Ctk/2026 Prasanta Kr. Panda Vs ITO 3 assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer by producing all the details and evidences as are required in support of the claim. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) even after issuance of notices to the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), on the assessee, as admitted by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack-753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Now we take up appeals in ITA No. 29 & 30/Ctk/2026 for the A.Y. 2016- 17 and 2017-18. In these appeals also, there are delay in filing of appeals before the Tribunal. Since we have condoned the delay in filing appeal in ITA No. 20/Ctk/2026 for the A.Y. 2015-16 before the Tribunal and restored the issues back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/-, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, we also condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 20, 29 & 30/Ctk/2026 Prasanta Kr. Panda Vs ITO 4 and also restore these appeals back to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication the issues on merits subject to the payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each in both the appeals, on the assessee, as admitted by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack-753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. 9. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 25/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "