SOCIETY FOR GOVT. OF ODISHA ASHOK LEYLAND HMV DTI, CHHATIA/AOP,JAJPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without granting adequate opportunity. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for not providing assessment order and written submissions. The assessee contended that adequate opportunities were not granted and the CIT(A) decided the appeal casually.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by dismissing it for non-submission of documents without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 12.06.2023, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053666783(1) for the assessment year 2016-2017.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee in a very casual manner by mentioning that documents were not submitted. It was submitted that adequate opportunities have not been granted to the assessee. It was also submitted that in the original order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, there was no demand raised on the assessee. Subsequently, an order u/s.154 of the Act was passed on 17.12.2018 without issuing show cause notice to the assessee and without hearing the assessee wherein a demand has been raised. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside as also the order passed u/s.154 of the Act is liable to be set aside.
In reply, ld.Sr. DR submitted that the Tribunal cannot hear this appeal, insofar as the appeal has been filed against the order u/s.143(3) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and when the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal, the assessee has challenged even the order passed u/s.154 of the Act. It was submitted that the original order has not been filed before the ld.CIT(A). It was further submission that there was a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
I have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with affidavit, shows that the delay was on account of getting the proper advice from the counsel belatedly. As the assessee has given reasonable cause and the delay was only of 17 days, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 5. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has recognized that the appeal has been filed against the order u/s.143(3) of the Act but the date of the order is mentioned as 17.12.2018, which is date of order u/s.154 of the Act. It was also recognized by the ld. CIT(A) that the order u/s.154 of the Act has been passed by the ld.AO suo moto. This is evident in para 5 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). In the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in para 6.2, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessment order and the grounds-wise written submissions had not been provided. This being so, I am of the view that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be granted
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026