M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce material evidence. This was done in the interest of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without sufficient opportunity. The assessee contended that they had provided documents to the AO, but their explanation was not accepted. They requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case and evidence.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.03.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051606393(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was also the submission that the assessee had produced books of accounts, documents and other particulars before the AO, however, the AO had not accepted assessee’s contention and explanation. It was the submission the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the assessee may be given one more opportunity to provide the materials before the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim.
2 3. In reply, CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. It was the submission that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to provide the details in respect of his claim, however, the assessee could not produce the same either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the orders of both the lower authorities deserve to be upheld.
We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) had granted a few opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before him. However, it is noticed that the assessee has not been effectively represented before the ld. CIT(A) and consequently on account of non-availability of evidences before the ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed. Considering the request of the ld. AR of the assessee and in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the material evidences in respect of his claim before the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2023. (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 29/11/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026