What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, as the Tribunal could not adjudicate without evidence being filed before lower authorities.

The assessee failed to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and did not respond to notices. The revenue argued that the assessment orders and CIT(A) orders should be upheld.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals can be adjudicated without the assessee providing requisite evidence to the lower authorities. The need to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Adisesha Raju Mantena, Hyderabad vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2024

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

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Hearing: 18/0Pronounced: 18/0

O R D E R Per Bench These are ese are appeals filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi both dated 12.3.2024 12.3.2024 in Appeal Nos. NFAC/2012-13/10123472 & NFAC/2014 13/10123472 & NFAC/2014-15/10123480 15/10123480 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015 14 & 2015-16, respectively.

None represented on behalf None represented on behalf the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 3 & 229/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16

It was submitted by ld Sr DR that the assessee has not produced any evidence before the Assessing Officer or ld CIT(A) nor has any agreement or Power of Attorney for sale of property. It was the submission that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessment orders and the orders of ld CIT(A) for both the assessment years are liable to be upheld.

We have considered the submission of ld Sr DR. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has not produced the requisite evidences before the AO and ld CIT(A). It is also noticed that without the evidence is being filed before the lower authorities, it would not be possible for the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue or examine any of the materials. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)

P a g e 2 | 3 & 229/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16

ADISESHA RAJU MANTENA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1, BERHAMPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments