ASIT BEHERA,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 666/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 August 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A for admitting additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 338 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) order passed ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence is valid.

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/2017- 18/10265879 dated 23/05/2025 for the assessment year 2018-19. 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.

The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 338 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is further supported by affidavit stating sufficient reasons for the dela

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 →