Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against quantum additions and penalty orders for Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2019-2020. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to be heard and sought more time to produce documents.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee showed an inability to produce documents and that the submission regarding trainee accountants was an afterthought. However, to grant adequate opportunity, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication and penalty proceedings.
Sections Cited
69C, 271AAC(1)
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 & 312/CTK/2025 have been filed by the assessee against separate orders in the quantum appeals passed by the ld. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, both dated 21.03.2025 for assessment years 2017-2018 & 2019-2020. have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, both dated 27.03.2025 for the assessment years 2017-2018 & 2019-2020, thereby levying penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act.
First we shall decide the appeals of the assessee in filed for A.Y.2017-2018 & 2019-2020 against the quantum additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
3. It was the submission of the ld.AR that while confirming the addition as made by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order u/s.69C of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has not provided the sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. it was also the submission that the assessee was having all the relevant documents to prove its case and for this the assessee in its written submission had sought time to produce the same, however, ld. CIT(A) without considering the same dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was the prayer of the ld. AR that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity so that the assessee could be able to provide all the documentary evidence to substantiate its case before the ld.AO.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order as well as the appellate order clearly shows that the assessee has shown its inability to produce the relevant documents as asked for before either of the authorities below. It is also noticed that the assessee is trying to make its submission that some trainee accountants running their software. This is nothing but an afterthought. But so as to grant adequate opportunity to represent its case and produce the relevant documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer, the issues in both the appeals are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication afresh. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer in the readjudication proceedings positively. Thus, the appeals of