ARIES MINERALSPRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 231/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 November 2023AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce material evidence. This decision was made in the interest of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity for being heard. The assessee contended that their explanations were not considered by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee 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

Hearing: 29/11/2023Pronounced: 29/11/2023

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 25.04.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052340368(1), for the assessment year 2015-2016.

2.

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 both the authorities below have not considered the explanation submitted by the assessee in the form of statement of facts and grounds of appeal

1.

. 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.

3. In reply, ld.Sr.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.

4. I 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 either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A) and consequently on account of non-availability of evidences before the ld. CIT(A), the issues have been held against the assessee. 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).

5. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (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 →