SUDHIR KUMAR PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD-4(3),BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 743/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 August 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider Rule 46A for any additional evidence and grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and produce necessary documents, leading to an ex parte order. The assessee claimed they did not receive notices and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence before the lower authorities and whether additional evidence should be admitted by the CIT(A).

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: 19/08/2026Pronounced: 19/08/2026

Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11047/2017-18 dated 05.01.2026 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Arnab Mukherjee, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

A perusal of the facts in the present appeal shows that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and the assessee failed to produce details/documents before the ld. C

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 →