What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not responded to notices and had not filed evidence. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and file necessary evidence before the CIT(A).

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) as the assessee did not respond to notices due to a non-functional email. The assessee sought one more opportunity to present evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) when the initial appeal was decided ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices.

Prahlada Charan Baug, Balasore vs ACIT | ITAT Cuttack 2023

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

Before: AND RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri C.A.Parida, AR

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

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), NFAC, Delhi , NFAC, Delhi dated 10.1.2023 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 BA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048588073 23/1048588073(1) for the assessment year 2015-16.

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

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order exparte impugned order exparte. It was the submission that It was the submission that the allegation that P a g e 1 | 3 several notices were sent to the assessee but the same are not received due to the fact that the email of the assessee was not functional. Therefore, the assessee could not respond to the notices. It was the submission that no evidences were filed before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that if one more opportunity is allowed, the assessee would furnish all the evidences for disposal of the appeal.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed as is evident from the first appellate order but the assessee remained silent.

We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the ld CIT(A) has afforded several opportunities and the assessee has not responded to the notices. No details were filed by the assessee for considering the issues. Before us, ld AR has prayed that one more opportunity be granted to putforth the case. A perusal of the paper book filed before the Tribunal shows that substantial number of evidences is in the form of fresh evidences. This being so, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be allowed one more opportunity to represent its case before the Ld CIT(A) and file the evidences, as he deems necessary, for adjudication of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. As the same time, we direct the assessee to respond to the notices to be issued by the ld CIT(A) and cooperate in finalization of the appellate proceedings. P a g e 2 | 3

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2023.

SD/- SD/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26/06/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant Prahalad Charan Baug, Azimabad, Balasore 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Baleswar Circle, Balasore 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

PRAHLADA CHARAN BAUG,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments