Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 254 days and was admitted after condoning the delay. The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to lack of documents, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with a sufficient opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) and whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Firewater Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Berhampur Circle, Komatlapeta, Rayagada Berhampur PAN No. : AAFCS 5071 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri N.Trinath Rao, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in Appeal No.CIT(A),Bhubaneswar-1/10070/2018-19 for the assessment year 2015-2016.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 254 days. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case delay of 254 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate his claim.
In reply, ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not produced any evidence either before the ld. Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that looking to the non- cooperative attitude of the assessee, a reasonable cost deserves to be levied.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents neither before the ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings nor before the ld. AO in assessment proceedings. However, the ld. AR has made a request before the Bench that if the assessee is given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, the assessee could be able to provide all the details before the ld. Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, we grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. AO by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association, ITAT Campus, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack- 753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the AO at the first hearing. Should the