SRADHANJALI PANDA,PURI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD PURI, PURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 302/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the ITAT Bar Association within 60 days.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 145 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessment was made under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, and the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence after the assessment and CIT(A) orders were passed due to non-production of documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Prasanta Ku. Mishra/P.K.Mishra, Advs
For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR
Hearing: 25/05/2026Pronounced: 25/05/2026

1 ITA No.302 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.302 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sradhanjali Panda, At: Gudia Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Puri Sahi, PO/PS:Puri Town, Dist: Puri PAN/GIR No. ARDPP 3058 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prasanta Ku. Mishra/P.K.Mishra, Advs 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 1.8.2025 in Appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10152696 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Prasanta Ku. Mishra/P.K.Mishra, ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld DR appeared for the revenue. 3. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 145 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious

2 ITA No.302 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessment in this case has been passed u/s.147 read with section 144 of the Act and all the details were furnished before the Assessing Officer. He submitted that even the ld CIT(A) has passed order exparte. He prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to furnish all the documentary evidences and information, as will be required for the fresh assessment.

4.

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 submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.

5.

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.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Even the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition for want of evidences produced before him. Before us, ld AR has prayed for one more opportunity to produce all the documents. This being so, in the interest of justice, 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.10,000/-(Rupees ten

3 ITA No.302 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

thousand only) on 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 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. 6. 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 : Sradhanjali Panda, At: Gudia Sahi, PO/PS:Puri Town, Dist: Puri

2.

The respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward Puri 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →