LAXMI GOENKA,BELPAHAR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 290/CTK/2024Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 September 2024AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the appellate order without discussing the facts and issues, and simply upheld the assessment order. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was heard. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) passed the order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without discussing the case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without discussing the merits of the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Kedia, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Hearing: 5/9Pronounced: 5/9

Assessment Year : 2011-2012 2012 Laxmi Goenka, C/O. Krish Laxmi Goenka, C/O. Krish Vs. ACIT, Sambalpur ACIT, Sambalpur Coal Coal Movers, Movers, At/PO: At/PO: Belpahar Belpahar R.S. R.S. Dist: Dist: Jharsuguda PAN/GIR No. No.AIAPG 1924 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K.Kedia, CA M.K.Kedia, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 5/9/ /2024 Date of Pronouncement : 5/9 /9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated dated 21.5.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Sambalpur/10168/2018 CIT(A),Sambalpur/10168/2018-19 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Shri M.K.Kedia, M.K.Kedia, 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.

Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order exparte has passed the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of without affording reasonable opportunity of P a g e 1 | 3 hearing to the assessee It was further submitted that while passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the facts of the case, the issues under consideration . It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) simply upheld the order passed by Assessing Officer, without any discussion of the case on merits. It was his prayer that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and undertakes to furnish all the required documents/evidences to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR did not have any serious objection to the request of ld AR of the assessee.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has passed appellate order without discussing the facts of the case and the issues under consideration and simply proceeded to uphold the assessment order, without any discussion on the issue under consideration before him. It is also noticed that the assessee has give four opportunities to the assessee to comply with the notices and to file necessary documents in support of the case and there was no representation from the side of the assessee. However, it was the prayer of the assessee to give one more opportunity to present his case. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard.

P a g e 2 | 3

6.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 5/9/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 5/9/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Laxmi Goenka, C/O. Krish Coal Movers, At/PO: Belpahar R.S. Dist: Jharsuguda 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →