URMILA PRADHAN,JAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD1(1), CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 17/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 June 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-furnishing of documentary evidence and non-compliance with notices. The original assessment was also made under Section 144 due to the assessee's non-representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

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,

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr, Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20/0Pronounced: 20/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Urmila Urmila Pradhan, Pradhan, At At-Bada Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chapoi, PO- - Arthanga, Via- 1(1), Cuttack 1(1), Cuttack Kabirpur, Jajpur Kabirpur, Jajpur PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.CPKPP 8640 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Chitrasen Parida, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20/0 06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20/0 /06/2024 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 15.11.2023 15.11.2023 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10401/2019 CIT(A),Cuttack/10401/2019-20 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Shri Chitrasen Parida, Chitrasen Parida, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT( It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has passed A), NFAC, Delhi has passed order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the P a g e 1 | 3 assessee. He submitted that the Assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act. He prayed to remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration of the issues in this appeal.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the 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 issued five notices, as is evident from the order of the ld CIT(A) at page 4. As the documentary evidences in support of the claim were not furnished and due to non- compliance to the notices, the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order. Now, ld AR has undertaken before us that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would be in a position to file the documentary evidences in support of the claim before the Assessing officer. We also find that the assessment in this case has been passed u/s.144 due to non- representation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two Thousand only) to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500. In the event the cost is not paid, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.

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 20/06/2024.

(Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 20/06/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Urmila Pradhan, At-Bada Chapoi, PO- Arthanga, Via- Kabirpur, Jajpur 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 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 →