UMESH PRASAD KESHARI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO 3(1) JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 244/Ran/2026 (Assessment Year-2017-18) Umesh Prasad Keshari, I.T.O., M/s Keshari Flour Mill, J/2 Rice Market, Ward 3(2), Vs. Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Jamshedpur. (Jharkhand) PAN No. AEMPK 3971 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri Narendra Nath Sen, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 09/07/2026

O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, the ld. CIT(A) in Appeal No. CIT(A), Jamshedpur/10021/2019-20 dated 16/10/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Shri Narendra Nath Sen, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandipan Khan, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld AR pleaded that if this Court grants the assessee one more opportunity by restoring this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A), so

ITA 244/Ran/2026 Umesh Prasad Keshari Vs ITO. that the assessee will be able to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he prayed that the appeal be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 4. In reply, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that despite the ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We found on perusal of the orders of the authorities below that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. The assessee could not substantiate his claim by providing relevant documents before the lower authorities. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Considering the principles of natural justice, in our considered view, one last chance should be provided to the assessee to explain his case before the ld. CIT(A). This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Here it would worthwhile to mention specifically that the ld. CIT(A) shall consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules) in so far as if any evidences are produced by the assessee which are not been produced before the Assessing Officer, then the assessee shall have to give the explanation for non-production of such details as required in the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. If the ld. CIT(A) admits such fresh

ITA 244/Ran/2026 Umesh Prasad Keshari Vs ITO. evidences then obviously the ld. CIT(A) could have to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer in so far as the principles of natural justice should be complied with even in respect of the Assessing Officer. With these directions, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 09/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 09/07/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi