SANDEEP KUMAR DEY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANSWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee will be granted adequate opportunities to substantiate its claims before the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for cash deposits and receipts during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the submitted facts, leading the assessee to request another opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence before the AO, and whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's submissions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
O R D E R
Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.03.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in I.T.Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1063083129(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee certain details regarding his claim, however, the assessee could not submit the documentary evidence before the AO, resulting into making additions on account of unexplained cash deposits and on account of receipts. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) has filed statement of facts along with grounds of appeal
but the ld. CIT(A) without considering the same dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that 2 one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case and substantiate its claim before the AO.
3. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee could not furnish the details as asked for by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), clearly shows that notices were issued to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), however, no compliance has been made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. As no compliance has been made before either of the authorities below, therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate its claim.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2024. (GEORGE MATHAN) (MANISH AGARWAL) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 24/07/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026