What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, subject to paying a cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

The assessee failed to furnish complete details to the Assessing Officer, leading to an assessment under Section 144. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order. The assessee sought one more opportunity to present documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to furnish evidence after failing to do so before the lower authorities.

Sanjaya Kumar Behera, Cuttack vs ITO | s.144 | ITAT Cuttack 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kr Agarwal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR

Hearing: 25/05/2026Pronounced: 25/05/2026

1 ITA No.291/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.291/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjaya Kumar Behera, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Cuttack Shyamasundarapur Attapa, Balijhari, Kanpur, Cuttak-754037 PAN/GIR No. BITPB 9740 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pawan Kr Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 25/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25/05/2026

O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 29.11.2025 in Appeal No.NFAC/2016-17/10515391 for the assessment year2017—18. 2. Shri Pawan Kr Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessment in this case has been passed u/s. 144 of the Act as all the details were not furnished before the Assessing Officer. He submitted that even the ld CIT(A) has passed order exparte. He prayed that the

2 ITA No.291/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee may be given one more opportunity to furnish all the documentary evidences and information, as will be required for the fresh assessment.

In reply, ld Sr. DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was the submission that the matter was restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) in the first round of proceedings by the ITAT. It was submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case and the orders of the lower authorities clearly shows that although the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities by the AO to produce the required documents in support of the case, the assessee has partly furnished the documents, for which, the Assessing Officer has passed order u/s 144 of the Act. The matter was restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition for want of evidences produced before him as also non-compliance of the notices. Before us, ld AR has prayed for one more opportunity to produce all the documents. This being so, in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard subject to paying of cost of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) by the assessee to be payable to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association Odisha Cuttack within 60 days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay

3 ITA No.291/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 the above mentioned cost within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 25/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sanjaya Kumar Behera, Shyamasundarapur Attapa, Balijhari, Kanpur, Cuttak-754037

The respondent: ito, Ward-2(5), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

SANJAYA KUMAR BEHERA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD 2(5), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments