What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was granted adequate opportunities to substantiate its claim, considering the AO's partial findings on the production of details.

The assessee, a partner in a construction and transportation firm, purchased immovable properties. The Assessing Officer (AO) requested certain information, which the assessee partially complied with but could not provide all documentary evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to produce documentary evidence before the AO and CIT(A), and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Sashikanta Jena, Akhuapada vs ACIT | ITAT Cuttack 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 24/04/2024Pronounced: 24/04/2024

Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 09/06/2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053640353(1) for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. It was the submission by the ld. AR that the assessee is a partner in the partnership firm, who is doing business of construction and transportation. It was the submission that the assessee had purchased certain immovable properties during the relevant assessment year. The AO has asked the assessee to provide certain information by 07.12.2018 as is mentioned in page 2 of the assessment order. It was the submission that the assessee had duly complied with the same but could not able to produce the documentary evidence in support of his claim. It was the 2 submission that the AO did not grant the assessee any further time to produce the evidence and it was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of ld. AO so that the assessee could comply all the direction. It was the further submission that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the submission that the issues may be restored to the file of AO for readjudication.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order 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.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order page 2 shows that the AO has asked for certain details. A perusal of the page 3 of the assessment order shows that there was only part finding of the production of the details. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate its claim.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/04/2024. (MANISH AGARWAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 24/04/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

3 आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant-

Sashikanta Jena, AT/PO: Akhuapada, Dist: Bhadrak-756122 प्रत्यथी / The Respondent-

ACIT, Balasore Circle, Balasore आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR,

ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file.

सत्यावऩत प्रतत //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

(

SASHIKANTA JENA,AKHUAPADA vs. ACIT (CIRCLE -BALASORE), AT PRESENT ACIT CIRCLE-CUTTACK, CUTTACK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments