TRILOCHAN MISHRA,KHORDHA vs. ITO, KHORDHA WARD, KHORDHA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo consideration. The AO was directed to reframe the assessments after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider all required evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessments were completed under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act due to non-compliance with notices. Additions were made regarding cash deposits. The assessee submitted additional evidence at the first appellate stage, but the remand report was incomplete and not properly considered.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the additional evidence and remand report, and whether the assessee was afforded a proper opportunity to present their case during reassessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
These are appeals filed by the assessee against then separate orders of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 27.8.2019 for the assessment years, 2010-11& 2011-12, orders dated 25.7.2019 for the assessment years 2013- 14, 2015-16 & 2016-17, respectively.
At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessments in all these assessment years were completed u/s.144/ r.w.s 147 of the Act. In all these appeals the additions have been made by the AO in regard to cash deposit in the bank. He submitted that at the first appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support of this claim and the ld CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the P a g e 1 | 3 t o 3 15 /C TK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ears: 2 010 -11 , 201 1-1 2, 20 13- 14, 2 015 - 16 & 20 16- 17 Assessing officer. He submitted that the remand report is also not complete but however, the ld CIT(A) has not considered the remand report of the Assessing Officer in right prospective. He submitted that during the remand report, the assessee was also not allowed to confront the same. Therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the additions made by the AO.
Replying to above, ld D.R. did not have any serious objection regarding restoring the matter to the file of the AO for denovo consideration after allowing proper opportunity to the assessee for passing the reassessment order.
On careful consideration of the rival submissions, first of all, I may point out that the assessments in all these appeals have been passed under section 144/147 of the Act for the failure of the assessee to comply the notices issued by the Assessing officer. Hence, the contention of the assessee was not considered during the assessment proceedings. However, at the first appellate stage, the assessee had produced some additional evidences in support of the claim and the same were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for remand report. As it appears from the assessment records and the appellate order, the remand report furnished by the assessee is not complete and also the CIT(A) has not considered the report in proper perspective. Be that as it may, before me, ld D.R. conceded that if the matter is restored to the file of the AO a fresh consideration, the P a g e 2 | 3 t o 3 15 /C TK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ears: 2 010 -11 , 201 1-1 2, 20 13- 14, 2 015 - 16 & 20 16- 17 department has no serious objection. In view of above, it would be just and proper to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for making denovo consideration. The AO is directed to reframe the assessments after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Simultaneously, the assessee is directed to produce all such evidences, as required for finalization of reassessment proceedings before the Assessing officer. With these observations, all the appeals are restored to the file of the AO.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 09 /01/2020.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026