LUCKY OFFSET PVT LTD,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present details. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the ITAT Bar Association within 60 days.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) including a one-time settlement with OSFC, disallowance of business expenses, and additions for sundry creditors and statutory dues. The assessee admitted a communication gap prevented them from providing details to the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee had sufficient opportunity to present evidence before the AO, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration with costs.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR
1 ITA No.348/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.348/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lucky Offset Pvt Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Aayakar D 2/4 Industrial Estate, Bhawan, Ambapua, Berhampur Berhampur-760008 PAN/GIR No. AAACL 3866 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K.Padhi, CA Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT 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 5.2.2026 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10382/2018-19 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Shri A.K.Padhi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty , ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that substantial issues are involved in this appeal, mainly being an addition of Rs.1.93 crores representing the one-time settlement with Orissa State Financial Corporation (OSFC), disallowance out of business expenses, addition in respect of sundry creditors as also on account of non-payment of various statutory dues. It was the submission that the issue of OSFC interest paid back was
2 ITA No.348/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14
covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 3007, 2018(4) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs CIT (2003) 261 ITR 501(Bom). It was however fairly agreed by ld AR that the assessee has not replied to the show cause notice issued in the course of assessment due to certain communication gap, for which, the assessee could not produce the details of interest OTS before the Assessing Officer. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee would produce all the details. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the proof of the non-claiming of interest has not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the assessee itself in its financial account has shown the write-off as “income from other sources”. It was the submission that if the issues are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, then substantial cost must be levied on the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence in regard to various additions made in the assessment order. Also considering the fact that the assessee has not produced any evidence in regard to whether the OSFC interest has been claimed as expenditure in the earlier assessment years or not has not been considered nor any evidence produced. This being so, in the interest of justice and considering the submission of ld CIT DR, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee subject to paying of cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty
3 ITA No.348/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14
five 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, appeal of the assessee stands 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 : Lucky Offset Pvt Ltd., D 2/4 Industrial Estate, Berhampur-760008
The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Ambapua, Berhampur 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 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026