JYOTIRMAYEE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 September 2024AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities. The appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed five appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The appeals were filed with a delay, which the Tribunal condoned. The original assessments were based on a survey where material was impounded, and the assessee had not provided proper replies.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer after survey-based additions were made without adequate representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 25/09/2024Pronounced: 25/09/2024

O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Bench : These five appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 21.03.2024, 24.04.2024 & 28.03.2024, for the assessment years 2012- 2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, respectively.

2.

Ld. AR has filed an adjournment application on the ground, which in our opinion, is not a plausible one. Thus, we reject the adjournment application and proceed to disposed off appeals.

3.

On perusal of the appeal record, we found the following delays in filing the respective appeals by the assessee:- Sl.No. ITA No. No. of delay 1. 58 2. 58 3. 65 4. 65 5. 30

4.

The assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of above delay in the respective appeals, to which ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection. Accordingly, we condone the delay as mentioned above in the respective appeals and the appeals are heard finally.

5.

After going through the records, we find that in all the cases, a survey was carried out and based on the material impounded during the course of survey, various additions were made in all the years under consideration. However, from the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that assessee has not represented nor any proper replies were submitted in respect to the entries found and documents impounded during the course of survey.

6.

Before us, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be allowed to the assessee to represent its case before the lower authorities.

7.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the request of the assessee.

8.

After considering these facts, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to represent its case before the lower authorities in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside all the five appeals to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say the assessee shall be allowed sufficient opportunity of being heard before deciding the issues.

9.

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →