SRI BIBEKANANDA SAHU, L/H. OF LATE SAHADEB SAHU,GANJAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, BERHAMPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal 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 AO had also estimated profit rejecting book results without proper examination. The assessee 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 AO rightly rejected book results without proper examination.
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 03.08.2023, passed in I.T.Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054834789(1) for the assessment year 2015-2016.
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 the ld. AO has also estimated the profit rejecting the book result of the assessee without examining the material available before him. 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 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 31/10/2023. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 31/10/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026