INDRAMANI SAHU,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL

ITA 684/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 August 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was instructed to comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 98 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order as the assessee failed to produce documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) should grant an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence when an ex parte order was passed due to non-production of documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Hearing: 20/08/2026Pronounced: 20/08/2026

Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2018-19/10393062 dated 21.11.2025 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Shri P. K. Mishra, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Arnab Mukherjee, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 98 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons for the delay. Considering the contents of the peti

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →