RIO TINTO ORISSA MINING PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the grounds relating to the validity of the assessment order. The assessee was to be given a proper opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) included grounds challenging the assessment order as time-barred and lacking jurisdiction. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated these specific grounds.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, specifically those challenging the assessment order's validity and jurisdiction.
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: SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM
Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 28.03.2016 for the assessment year 2005-
Before us the AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds No.2 to 4 of the appeal taken before him which are as under :- “2. That the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 is time barred, bad in law and legally untenable and is not sustainable in the eye of law.
That the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 is not sustainable in the eye of law as it lacks juri iction and also has not been framed after observing the mandatory provisions of law.
That the order dated 03.12.2017 u/s.144 of the Act is bad in law and legally untenable and therefore the order dated 31.03.2014 is bad in law, legally untenable.”
The DR, on the other hand, could not controvert the above submission of AR of the assessee.
In view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudicating the above grounds of appeal of the assessee afresh. Needless to mention that the CIT(A) shall allow reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the appeal of the assessee. We order accordingly.
As we have restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the validity of the assessment order, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal regarding the merit of the additions are also restored back to his file for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on Wedne ay, the 28th Day of February, 2018 at Cuttack. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N. S. SAINI) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 28/02/2018 प्र.कु.मि/PKM, Senior Private Secretary आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- Rio Tinto Orissa Mining Pvt. Ltd N-3/356, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar--751015 प्रत्यथी / The Respondent-
ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. गार्ड फाईऱ / Guard file. 6. सत्यापपत प्रतत ////
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026