What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, as they had not been heard by the lower authorities.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18. Both the assessee and revenue sought adjournment due to the Holi holiday. The CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, and the assessment order was passed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. The need to provide adequate opportunity for re-adjudication.

Bharatput Colliery Employees… vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2024

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

Hearing: 26/0Pronounced: 26/0

This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 29.11.2023 in in Appeal Appeal No. No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar/10380 Bhubaneswar/10380/2019-20 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017-18.

None repr None represented on behalf of the assessee esented on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed by the assessee, intimating that ld adjournment petition has been filed by the assessee, intimating that ld adjournment petition has been filed by the assessee, intimating that ld Counsel is to travel 140 kms Counsel is to travel 140 kms to represent his case and to represent his case and ‘Holi’ is being celebrated on rated on 26.3.2024. Ld SR DR has also sought adjournment on the 26.3.2024. Ld SR DR has also sought adjournment on the ground of holiday on account of ‘Holi’. The Central Government offices are ground of holiday on account of ‘Holi’. The Central Government offices are ground of holiday on account of ‘Holi’. The Central Government offices are P a g e 1 | 3 functioning on 26.3.2024. The grounds raised by the assessee and the revenue are therefore un-substantiated and rejected and the appeal is being disposed of on merits.

Perusal of the order of ld CIT(A) sows that the ld CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee on account of non-representation/non- prosecution. Perusal of the assessment order also shows that same has been passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act. Thus, clearly, the assessee has not been heard nor produced any evidence before the AO or ld CIT(A) to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2024.

Sd/- (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26/03/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)

P a g e 2 | 3

BHARATPUT COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE STORE LTD,ANGUL vs. ITO WARD 3 (2), BHUBANESWAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments