What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after providing another opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit documents.

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeals for non-appearance and non-submission of documents. The assessee's counsel sought an adjournment due to non-receipt of documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The need for the assessee to present its case with supporting documents.

Akash Deep Singh Grewal, Kolkata vs ACIT | ITAT Cuttack 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: GIRISH AGRAWALWAL

For Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, CIT, Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, CIT DR

Hearing: 19/07Pronounced: 19/0

matter of assessment u/s.1553C/143(3) of the Act for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and & 95/CTK/2023 are filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.1.2023 of the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, in the matter of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 & 2017-18, respectively.

None appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition dated 19th July, 2023 is placed on record by the counsel for the assessee stating therein that the documents are not received to file the paper book. Perusal of appeal records shows that the appeals can be decided in the absence of the assessee, therefore, we reject the adjournment petition and proceed to dispose off the appeals. Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue

We have considered the submission of ld CIT DR. On perusal of the appellate orders, it is noticed that there were no responses to the notices fixing for hearing from 30.3.2018 to 3.1.2023 by the ld CIT(A). It is also noted that more than eleven opportunities were given to the assessee to present its case before the ld. CIT(A), but the assessee has not availed the same. Even though the assessee acknowledged the receipt of notices fixing the hearing on two occasions, it was submitted by the assessee that either the case is pending before the Settlement Commission or before the Hon’ble High Court and the assessee has not represented his case before the ld. CIT(A). Since there were no explanatory notes or other documents P a g e 2 | 4

IT(ss)A Nos.24 to 29/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2014-15 & 95/CTK/2013 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. It is noticed that ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the observation of the Assessing Officer and on the ground that no details were furnished by the assessee, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The effective reasons given by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned orders that no documents were filed by the assessee to substantiate its case. Therefore, to meet the ends of natural justice, we incline to give another opportunity to rebut its case. Consequently, we set aside the exparte orders of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to decide the issue on merits in accordance with law after considering the material evidences and other details as may be submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) by giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details before the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues on merits.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/07/2023.

Sd/- sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 19/07/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)

P a g e 3 | 4

IT(ss)A Nos.24 to 29/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2014-15 & 95/CTK/2013 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18

AKASH DEEP SINGH GREWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments