JAYASHREE SAHU,CHATRAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR

ITA 227/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 October 2026AY 2017-182 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision was based on the observation that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte, and the assessee had failed to produce necessary details and documents before the lower appellate authority, nor had it properly represented its case. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an ex parte order passed due to the assessee's failure to appear or produce documents should be set aside and restored to the original authority for a fresh hearing, provided there is a reasonable cause for the failure and the assessee is willing to present its case. The operative direction is to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayashree Sahu, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, challenging an ex parte order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (referred to as CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed against the order passed under section 250. The assessee's representative appeared before the ITAT, as did the Senior Departmental Representative for the revenue. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte because the assessee failed to produce necessary details and documents and did not properly represent its case before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, considering the ex parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's failure to produce documents. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its AR, implicitly sought a fresh opportunity to present its case, as evidenced by the ITAT's decision to restore the matter. The assessee relied on the principle of natural justice to argue for a re-adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, did not explicitly record any contentions against the restoration of the appeal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 26/10/2026Pronounced: 26/10/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)] passed u/s 250 in Appeal No.NFAC/2016-17/10298428 dated 28/11/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Swarajya Sahu, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. A perusal of the facts in the present appeal shows that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and the assessee failed to produce details/documents before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee

2 ITA No.584&585/CTK/2026 has prayed that another opportunity may be granted so as to properly represent its case before the ld. CIT(A). This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Gopalan Gurusamy] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 26/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant- प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 2. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT ववभागीयप्रवतवनवि, आयकरअपीलीयअविकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. Cuttack 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard file.

सत्यावपतप्रवत //True Copy//

आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →