JPJ INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,CUTTACK vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 92/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 July 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 1000 on the assessee and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for readjudication after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to payment of cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-2019. The assessee had not produced any evidence before the AO or the CIT(A). The assessee requested one more opportunity to file documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to produce evidence before the appellate authority despite failing to do so before the lower authorities.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 17/07/2023Pronounced: 17/07/2023

O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 30.01.2023, passed in I.T.appeal No.Bhubaneswar-2/11235/2017-18, for the assessment year 2018-2019.

2.

At the outset, on perusal of the assessment order and the appellate order, it is found that the assessee has not produced any evidence either before the AO or before the ld.CIT(A). In this regard, ld.AR submitted that one more opportunity may be provided to file all the documents before the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim.

3.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the assessee could not produce the documents as required by the ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings as well as ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for not justifying the claim. During the course of hearing ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A). Looking to the nature of assessee in not bothering to produce the evidences before both the authorities below, we impose a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) on the assessee and direct the assessee to produce a copy of the receipt before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above and looking to the facts of the case, in the interest of 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, subject to the assessee providing the receipt of payment of cost of Rs.1000/- on the first date of posting the appeal for hearing.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/07/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 17/07/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →