MR. SAILENDRA KUMAR SAHOO,BHADRAK vs. ITO, BHADRAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 July 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided based on damaged files. The Assessing Officer had also passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 due to the assessee's non-representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed on damaged files and the AO's ex-parte order were justified, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Hearing: 22/0Pronounced: 22/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK , CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mr Sailendra Kumar Mr Sailendra Kumar Sahoo, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak S/O. S/O. Nabaghan Nabaghan Sahoo, Sahoo, Ghanteswar, Ghanteswar, Rajagurupur, Rajagurupur, Bhadrak PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.BELPS 1321 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda, Adv B.R.Panda, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 22/0 07/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22/0 /07/2024 O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 29.2.2024 in in Appeal Appeal No. No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10362/2019 Cuttack/10362/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017- -18.

2.

Shri B.R.Panda B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on the basis of damaged files submitted before him, impugned order on the basis of damaged files submitted before him, impugned order on the basis of damaged files submitted before him, considering the it as non the it as non-responsible behavior on the part of the assessee. responsible behavior on the part of the assessee.

P a g e 1 | 3 It was the submission that even the Assessing Officer has passed order u/s.144 of the Act due to non-representation before him by the assessee. It was the submission by ld AR that the matter be restored back to the file of the Assessing officer and the assessee will cooperate in the set aside proceedings with all documentary evidence.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of ld AO and ld CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order on the basis of damaged files uploaded by the assessee in response to notice. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s.144 of the Act due to non-representation by the assessee before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →