SURESH KUMAR TANWANI,BALANGIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BALANGIR WARD, BALANGIR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee 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 authorities below.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee and considering their submissions and evidence.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.10.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1046486431(1) for the assessment year 2009-2010.
It was the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) without giving sufficient opportunity 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. 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, 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.
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 subsequently 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).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/11/2023. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 22/11/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026