YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 534/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 December 2025AY 2011-12Bench: him with documentary evidences. It was the submission that one more opportunity be allowed to the assessee to furnish all the relevant documents in support of the claim. In reply, Id CIT DR submitted that the Id CIT(A) has discussed all the issues on merits although there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the orders of Id CIT(A) clearly shows that the Id CIT(A) has given seven opportunities as is evident from pages 2 &1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities to the assessee but there was no compliance. However, to provide an opportunity for proper adjudication, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee's appeals were delayed by 4 days, which the tribunal condoned. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-representation and lack of documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Restoration of appeals to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to non-representation and non-furnishing of documents, subject to cost.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

O R D E R Per Bench : These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 9.7.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-1 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10444/2018-19, and Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/10449/2018-19, for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, respectively. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, ld CIT DR and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

At the outset, it is found that the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 4 days. Considering the small delay in these appeals, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication.

4.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-representation before him with documentary evidences. It was the submission that one more opportunity be allowed to the assessee to furnish all the relevant documents in support of the claim. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has discussed all the issues on merits although there was no compliance from the side of the assessee.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the orders of ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has given seven opportunities as is evident from pages 2 & 3 of the order and there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. However, the ld CIT(A) has discussed all the points in the impugned order. It was the submission of ld AR that as the assessee has not represented before the ld CIT(A), the relevant documents in regard to the claim were not furnished before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.2000/- each in the appeals filed by the assessee to paid to ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack and the receipt of the same be produced before the ld CIT(A). Should the assessee not cooperate in the set aside proceedings,, ld CIT(A) is free to take adverse inference and decide the matter on merits.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →