BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY,BELATALA PATTAMUNDAI N A C vs. ITO WARD KENDRAPADA, KENDRAPADA

ITA 8/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 March 2024AY 2017-20182 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and substantiate their case, as documentary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2017-2018. The assessee's adjournment application was rejected as the grounds were unsatisfactory. The CIT(A) had noted that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present documentary evidence to substantiate their claims before the lower authorities.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 11/03/2024Pronounced: 11/03/2024

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07.11.2023, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057757732(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, an adjournment application filed by the AR of the assessee mentioning therein that the case records are yet to be reached at the office of the arguing counsel and the paper book is required to be filed containing requisite documents. The grounds for adjournment are found to be unsatisfactory. Thus, the adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected.

A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), more specifically in para 5.6, shows that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim for the year under consideration. This

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →