SUMANTA KUMAR PRADHAN,KHURDA vs. ITO KHURDA WARD, KHURDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed that they did not receive notices for assessment proceedings and for the hearing before the CIT(A), preventing them from substantiating their claims. The Revenue acknowledged that the appeal was belated but had no objection to restoring the file.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard due to non-receipt of notices, and if so, whether the assessment should be set aside.
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 24.11.2021 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037185913(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee is an individual. It was the submission that as the assessee had not received the notice, the assessee had been unable to cooperate in the assessment proceedings. It was also the submission that the assessee did not receive any notice for hearing before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that consequently the assessee was also not able to substantiate his claims before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer of the ld. AR that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of the AO and the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is belated. It was further submitted that he had no objection to restore the file of the AO for readjudication.
Ld. AR, in reply, submitted that there was no delay insofar as the order itself was not served on the assessee and the appeal has been filed within the time on the date of receipt of the order by the assessee. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the Registry has not identified any delay in filing of this appeal. It is also noticed that the assessee has not represented before the ld. AO. In these circumstances, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/06/2023. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 07/06/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- 1. Sumanta Kumar Pradhan, S/o: Shri Gatiswar Pradhan, At: Gadadharpur, Sunakera, PO: Banapur, Dist: Khurda प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. ITO Khurda Ward, Khurda आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026