SATYASAI MINES & MINERALS LIMITED.,BHUBANESWAR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 815/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Satyasai Mines & Minerals Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to an inordinate delay of 6 years and 6 months, which was not condoned. The assessee argued that the delay was due to the closure of their business unit and unawareness of the proceedings until recovery actions were initiated. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and condoned it, emphasizing substantial justice over technicality. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's failure to provide necessary documents and evidence during the initial proceedings and decided to restore the matter to the Jurisdictional AO for a fresh decision, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-cooperation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839131 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2025
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 815/CTK/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Satyasai Mines & Minerals Limited, At Plot No. N-5/274, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Khurda, Bhubaneshwar-751015 (Odisha) PAN No. AAHCS 4827 R Vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(4), Bhubaneshwar. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri P.K. Mishra and Shri Narahari Swain, A.Rs. Department represented by Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10169897 dated 10/01/2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Shri P.K. Mishra with Shri Narahari Swain, ld. A.Rs. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld. CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 273 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. CIT- DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 815/Ctk/2025 Satyasai Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs ITO 2 delay of 273 days 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 the 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 CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that there was an inordinate delay of 6 years and 6 months in filing this appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 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. In rejoinder submission, the ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was caused due to the fact that business unit of the assessee company was closed and the notice could not be served on the assessee company. The assessee company was totally unaware about the impugned proceedings initiated and order passed against it. When the recovery proceeding was initiated then the assessee company came to know about passing of assessment order. It was the submission that the director of the assessee company Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 815/Ctk/2025 Satyasai Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs ITO 3 suffered from corona and were hospitalised three times because of post corona side effect. The delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is not intentional and deliberate and the delay of 2327 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay and without considering the merit of the case. When substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of the substantial justice. By not condoning the delay in filing of the appeals, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee but by condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, the assessee would also know what is the mistakes that he has committed. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. As 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. Assessing Officer. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, we impose a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 815/Ctk/2025 Satyasai Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs ITO 4 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 AO 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. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 18/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee - Satyasai Mines & Minerals Limited, At Plot No. N-5/274, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Khurda, Bhubaneshwar-751015 (Odisha) 2. Revenue- I.T.O., Ward 1(4), Bhubaneshwar. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "