SRI SUNIL KUMAR MOHAPATRA,BARAGRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 323/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 April 2024AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide documentary evidence. This was done considering the assessee's prayer and the circumstances, despite the Revenue's objection.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in civil construction, failed to provide documentary evidence to the AO regarding sundry creditors, leading to additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without sufficient opportunity, prompting the assessee to request another chance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence before the lower authorities and if the case warrants a fresh adjudication by the AO.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 25/04/2024Pronounced: 25/04/2024

O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/06/2023, passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, passed in I.T.Appeal No.Sambalpur/10129/2017-18, for the assessment year 2015-2016.

2.

Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business of Civil Construction. 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 addition on the amount received from the sundry creditors treating the same as bogus. Further the AO has made disallowance of labour charges payable shown in the sundry creditors. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has AO, however, those documents have not been considered. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed statement of facts along with grounds of appeal

1.

. But the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity, has 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 3 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. Though the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has submitted his statement of facts along with grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which does not sufficient to decide the case. 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. 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 25/04/2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →