DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CUTTACK vs. SANATAN BISHOI, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 358/CTK/2024Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 October 2024AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to produce evidence before the AO, and the AO was permitted to draw adverse inferences in case of non-cooperation.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which admitted additional evidence without a remand report and allowed the assessee's appeal without a speaking order. The advocate for the assessee also appeared without a proper vakalatnama and uniform.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and allowing the appeal without a remand report or a speaking order. Procedural irregularities in the advocate's appearance were also noted.

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 Appellant: Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Hearing: 17/10/20Pronounced: 17/10/20

Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner of of Vs. Sanatan Bishoi, Panchupal, Sanatan Bishoi, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle-1(1), Circle Barang, Cuttack Barang, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AMWPB 4416 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Adv Gobardhan Sahoo, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR DR Date of Hearing : 17/10/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.6.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.NFAC/2017- 18/10240676 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

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

3.

At the time of hearing, one Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Advocate At the time of hearing, one Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Advocate At the time of hearing, one Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Advocate appeared, whose se Vakalatnama reads as follows:

P a g e 1 | 4

“

4.

The Vakalatama contains thumb impression, which is not supported by necessary affidavit. The advocate appearing in the Court was not in P a g e 2 | 4 uniform and the Tribunal has refused to hear him. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences and has not called for any remand report from the Assessing Officer and has blindly allowed the appeal of the assessee accepting the contention of the assessee without a speaking order. This being so, as it is noticed that the evidences which were not before the AO has been considered by the ld CIT(A) and no remand report has also been called for from the Assessing Officer, the order of the ld CIT(A) is set aside and the issues are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. Liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all such evidences before the AO as are required by him to support his claims. In the absence of providing details and non-cooperation before the AO, liberty is granted to the Assessing Officer to draw adverse inference.

5.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →