What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(Appeals) for failing to produce documentary evidence despite opportunities. The assessee requested one more opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Akbal Jullur Rahman, Keonjhar vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-CUTTACK ‘e-COURT’, ‘DB’ BENCH,

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

ITA No. 141/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2019-2020) Akbal Jullur Rahman National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20th August, 2025 passed for Assessment Year 2019-20.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte as the assessee failed to produce satisfactory documentary evidences in support of his claim inspite of sufficient opportunities given. He prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

At the time of hearing, ld. Departmental Representative stated that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of assessee ex-parte as the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim inspite of sufficient opportunities given. Even during the course of assessment proceedings, inspite of sufficient opportunities given, the assessee did not furnish documentary details in support of his claim. He, therefore, pleaded before the Bench to uphold the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of assessee ex-parte as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are

ITA No. 141/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2019-2020) Akbal Jullur Rahman inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Accountant Member Vice-President Kolkata, the 28th day of April, 2026

Copies to :(1) Akbal Jullur Rahman, At P.O./ P.S. Jhumpura, Dist. Keonjhar-758031, Odisha

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-Keonjhar, Income Tax Office, Jagannath Road, Keonjhar-758001, Odisha

ITA No. 141/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2019-2020) Akbal Jullur Rahman (3) CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha

AKBAL JULLUR RAHMAN,KEONJHAR vs. ITO, WARD KEONJHAR, KEONJHAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments