MANORANJAN MALLICK,KENDRAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, KENDRAPARA, KENDRAPARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 190/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 June 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- and cooperating by providing documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of SIM and mobile recharge vouchers, failed to provide documentary evidence to the AO regarding certain claims. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 26/06/2024Pronounced: 26/06/2024

O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.02.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in I.T.Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060951245(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of SIM & mobile recharge vouchers under name & style of M/s Baladevjew Trader at Chatarpatna, Kendrapara. 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 money and excess credits found in the bank account of the assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) assessee has filed 2 statement of facts along with grounds of appeal

1.

but the ld. CIT(A) without considering the same dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that 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 para 4 the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), shows that the notices were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not response to the same, neither any reply has been filed by the assessee. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee, we restore the issues to the file of ld. AO for readjudication afresh, subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to be deposited by the assessee under the head “others” in ITNS Challan 280 in the Account No.500. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO providing documentary evidence to substantiate its claim, positively.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2024. (GEORGE MATHAN) (MANISH AGARWAL) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 26/06/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →