What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, but the assessee failed to submit documents. However, considering the assessee's undertaking to produce evidence if given another chance, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 1000/-.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity and that the assessment was based on an R.I. report not confronted to them. The assessee sought another opportunity to present evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and if the assessment was based on material not confronted to the assessee.

Dilip Kumar Nanda, Bhubaneswar vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2023

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

Before: GIRISH AGRAWALWAL

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Hearing: 17/07Pronounced: 17/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK , CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A. No.4/CTK/2 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mr Dilip Kumar Nanda, Plot Mr Dilip Kumar Nanda, Plot Vs. ITO, Ward ITO, Ward-2(4), No.A-20, 20, HIG HIG Duplex, Duplex, Bubaneswar Bubaneswar Phase-II, II, Pokhariput, Pokhariput, PO: PO: Palashpalli, Bhubaneswar. Palashpalli, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AAFPN 4306 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Natabar Panda Panda, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 17/07 7/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 10.11.2022 10.11.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047218704(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016-17.

Shri Natabar Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri Natabar Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri Natabar Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 4

S.A. No.4/CTK/2 Assessment Year : 2016-17

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving adequte opportunity. It was the submission that even the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order on the basis of R.I. report regarding the kisam of the land, which was not confronted to the assessee. It was the prayer that if another opportunity is given to the assessee, he would adduce all such evidences before the ld CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the appeal.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that even the ld CIT(A) has afforded several opportunities but the assessee did not respond to the same.

We have heard the rival submissions. Perusal of the impugned order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has given four opportunities on 29.1.2021,31.5.2021, 11.11.2021 and 22.4.2022 as is evident from his order but the assessee could not represent his case by uploading written submission alongwith supporting documents. Ld AR submitted that the type of the disputed land is ‘itabhati’ and not homestead land, hence, it can be treated as agricultural land. No opportunity was allowed to the assessee to confront as to whether the land is agricultural land or homestead land. It is on the basis of the R.I. report, which is behind the back of the assessee. No doubt the non-submissions of the documents were attributable to the assessee. However, before us, ld AR undertakes that if one more opportunity is allowed, the assessee would P a g e 2 | 4

S.A. No.4/CTK/2 Assessment Year : 2016-17 produce all such evidences, as are required by the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal. Considering the non-compliance made by the assessee before the ld CIT(A), a cost of Rs.1000/- is being levied on the assessee. Subject to the assessee paying the cost of Rs.1,000/- under the head “others” to be paid online and production of the receipt, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit of the cost as tax, fees, penalty or any other form in any of the assessment years.

The assessee has filed stay petition being S.A. No.4/CTK/2023 to stay the demand raised on the assessee on the ground that the assessee is suffering from acute financial hardship. As we have restored the issue to the file of the ld CIT(A) while adjudicating the quantum appeal, the stay petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

In the result, Stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/07/2023.

DILIP KUMAR NANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(4), BHUBANESWAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments