UTKAL EXPORTABLE CLOTH PRODUCTION WCS LTD,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 640/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 August 2026AY 2016-174 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 assessee was directed to file a reply, and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex parte order as the assessee failed to produce necessary documents. The assessee claimed they did not receive the notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether additional evidence should be admitted.

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: 18/08/2026Pronounced: 18/08/2026

Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi (the ‘CIT(A)’) in appeal no.NFAC/2015- 16/10334527 dated 04/07/2025 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, AR 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. CIT(A). Th

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 →