STATE BANK OF INDIA,BALONI BRANCH,BALONI V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 765/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the State Bank of India, Baloni Branch, Keonjhar, as the appellant, and the J.C.I.T. (TDS), Bhubaneshwar, as the respondent. The appeal was against the order of the CIT(A), Bhubaneshwar-2, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to a delay in filing. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before it to be sufficient and thus condoned the delay. The main contention was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839804 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2025
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; TDS

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. 765/CTK/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) State Bank of India, Baloni Branch, Keonjhar, Kendujhar-758037 (Odisha) PAN No. AAACS 8577 K Vs. J.C.I.T. (TDS), Bhubaneshwar. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri S.K. Agarwalla, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR Date of hearing 23/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 23/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bhubaneshwar-2 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Cuttack/10162/2013-14 dated 17/01/2025 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Shri S.K. Agarwalla, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 266 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. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 266 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 765/Ctk/2025 SBI Vs JCIT(TDS) 2 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without condoning the delay of 20 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the merit of the case. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh on merit. 5. In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). However, it was submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that if the issues are being restored to the file of the ld. CIT-(A), then exemplary cost must be levied. 6. 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. The delay in not an inordinate in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 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 appeal, 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 it 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. It is noticed from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 765/Ctk/2025 SBI Vs JCIT(TDS) 3 assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 23/02/2026 *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 "