PRASANTA PANDA,KHAJURIPADA,KANDHAMALA vs. ITO,PHULBANI WARD, PHULBANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/CTK/2024Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 November 2024AY 2013-20142 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the issues on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee had not complied with several notices issued by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without adjudicating the issues on merits. Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR, Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Hearing: 11/11/20Pronounced: 11/11/20

O R D E R Per Bench These are These are appeals filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 4.6.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.NFAC/2012- 13/10293457 and 13/10293457 and NFAC/2013-14/10293458 for the ass for the assessment years 2013-14 7 2014- -15, respectively

2.

None appeared for appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue.

3.

We have considered the submission of ld Sr We have considered the submission of ld Sr DR and perused the DR and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned orders clearly show that the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned orders clearly show that the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned orders clearly show that the P a g e 1 | 2 & 432 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte as the assessee had not complied with several notices issued by the ld CIT (A). It is also noticed that the ld CIT(A) has not considered the issue on merits. Even the assessment orders were passed exparte u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.

1.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 11/11/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: Prasand Kumar Panda,Prop. Lucky Wine Shop, Khaj Uripada, Kandhamal 2. The Respondent: CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →