What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. All legal issues were left open for consideration.

The assessee filed three appeals against ex parte assessment orders where documentary evidence was not produced. The assessee sought restoration of the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to present evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte assessment orders should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee to produce evidence.

Bishikesan Pattanayak, Baripada vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Somanath Sahoo, AR

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.243, 244 & 251/CTK/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Bishikesan Pattanayak ITO, Ward-1, Baripada

Baghararoad, Ward No.19, Vs Baripada, Mayurbhanj- 757001, Orissa. (PAN: AHDPP6016B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Somanath Sahoo, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is a batch of three appeals filed by the same assessee against the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2012-13/10128363, NFAC/2015- 16/10148718 and NFAC/2012-13/10148727 all dated 08.12.2025 for the assessment years 2013-14, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. Since identical issues are involved in all these appeal hence the above appeals were heard together and the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

ITA No.243/CTK/2026

Shri Somanath Sahoo, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessments are basically ex parte assessments and the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s claim saying that the documentary evidences have not been produced. It was also submitted that the issues on reopening needs to be also considered. It was prayed that the issues should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication so that the assessee can produce all evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was also prayed that the legal issues may also left open.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection.

We have heard the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessee has not cooperated before the Assessing Officer, therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. All the issues in these appeals are left open.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 13th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

ITA No.243/CTK/2026

Dated: 13.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

BISHIKESAN PATTANAYAK,BARIPADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments