SUBRAT TARAI,ROURKELA V. ITO WARD 3, ROURKELA

ITA 206/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee, Subrat Tarai, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2017-18. The primary issues were the dismissal of the appeals as not maintainable due to belated filing and the ex parte order passed without reasonable opportunity to the assessee for the year 2017-18. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and the lack of representation, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remand the cases for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705433 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: AMUYLYA KUMAR ROY
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE SHRI Assessment Year Subrat Tarai B-22, Sector-3 Rourkela 7669002 PAN/GIR No.AETPT9056L (Appellant The present appeal the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Appeal Nos. CIT(A), Sambalpur/100 Sambalpur/10002/ Assessment Years 2012 Addl/JCIT(A), Kanpur Sambalpur/10004/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) ITA Nos.204 to 207/CTK/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017 Rourkela 7669002 Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Rourkela -769012 AETPT9056L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amuylya Kumar Roy, 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 appeals are 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 . CIT(A), Sambalpur/10001/2020- Sambalpur/10002/2020-21, CIT(A), Sambalpur/10003/ 2020 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and dated Addl/JCIT(A), Kanpur 28.2.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), mbalpur/10004/2020-21 passed for the assessment year P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) 15 & 2017-18 , Rourkela Respondent) Amuylya Kumar Roy, AR S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR /2025 /2025 directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless dated 14/02/2024, in -21, CIT(A), , CIT(A), Sambalpur/10003/ 2020-21, passed for 28.2.2024 of Ld 28.2.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), passed for the assessment year 2017-18. ITA Nos.204 to 207/CTK/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 P a g e 2 | 4 2. In respect of appeals for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15, it was stated by ld AR of the assessee that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the appeals were filed belatedly. He submitted that the assessee had given reasons for not filing the appeals within the stipulated period. In respect of appeal for the assessment year 2017-18, it is stated that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He prayed that the delay in filing of the appeals for the assessment year 2012-13 to 2014- 15 be condoned and all the appeals be remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the ld CIT(A) for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15, I noticed that the assessee filed condonation petition explaining reasons for delay in filing of appeals. The CIT(A) rejected assessee’s petitions for condonation and dismissed the appeals in limine. The ld. Counsel submits that the delay in filing of appeals before the CIT(A) was not intentional. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR representing the department strongly supporting the orders of CIT(A) prayed for dismissing appeals of the assessee. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to explain “sufficient cause” for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). ITA Nos.204 to 207/CTK/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 P a g e 3 | 4 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the record of the case. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessee in limine as the same were filed beyond limitation. Undisputedly, the first appeal filed by the assessee was time barred by 99 days. I have examined the reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of appeals before the First Appellate Authority saying that due to his personal problems, the assessee is not able to file the appeal within time and also he brought to my notice that he is having fair chance to succeed in the appeal on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I condone the delay in filing of appeals as same was not intentional or for want of inaction on the part of the assessee/appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 6. In light of facts of the case and the law expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, impugned order is set aside and the appeals are restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee/appellant, in accordance with law for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.204 to 207/CTK/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 P a g e 4 | 4 Similarly, for the assessment year 2017-18, I noticed that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-representation on behalf of the assessee during the appellate proceedings. For this year also, I restore the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2025. Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack: Dated 30/06/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Asst.Registrar, Itat, cuttack 1. The Appellant : Subrat Tarai B-22, Sector-3 Rourkela 7669002 2. The Respondent : ITO, Ward-3, Rourkela 3. The CIT(A)-, 4. Pr.CIT- 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "