EARTH MINERALS COMPANY LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to verify the declaration to be produced by the assessee and pass a reasoned order. The assessee was directed to cooperate and be provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing an opportunity of hearing and requested to present their case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM
O R D E R
Per L.P.Sahu, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the CIT(A), Cuttack for the assessment year 2014-2015.
At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the ex- parte order without providing any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A). 3. Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has passed order after considering the material available on record. Hence, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.
After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusing the relevant material placed in the record of the Tribunal, we find that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte for want of compliance from the assessee. The CIT(A) in its order has also noted that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source towards payment to MCL as rent for usage of railway siding. As per the CIT(A) the assessee has not obtained declaration from a Chartered Accountant of MCL in a prescribed form stating that the said receipt has been accounted for by MCL in its books of account and tax has duly been paid on it and further such form has to be furnished before a prescribed authority. Ld. AR before us submitted that the deduction from the current year’s income of the unabsorbed business losses and unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from preceding assessment years and claimed in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that the declaration from the Chartered Accountant of MCL in a prescribed form has been obtained, however, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the same could not be produced before the CIT(A), therefore, he requested for an opportunity to produce the same before the CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to verify the declaration to be produced by the assessee and pass a speaking and reasoned order considering the submissions of the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) positively and cooperate with the CIT(A) in early disposal of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18/06/ 2020. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 18/06/2020 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीलाथी / The Appellant- 1. Earth Minerals Co. Ltd., Plot No.38(P), Village-Kirarama, Post-Bandhbahal, Tehsil-Lakhanpur, District-Jharsuguda प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela आयकि आयुक्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. Cuttack गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack
More judgments on Section 139(1)
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026