CITY SANITARY & TILES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 311/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed and Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had shown inability to produce relevant documents before the lower authorities and considered the submission regarding trainee accountants as an afterthought. However, to grant an adequate opportunity, the issues in the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders in quantum appeals and penalty appeals for assessment years 2017-2018 & 2019-2020. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to be heard and to produce documents for the quantum appeals. For penalty appeals, the assessee's issues were related to the quantum additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee for producing documents? Whether the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) is sustainable when quantum appeals are restored?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 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

Hearing: 22/07/2025Pronounced: 22/07/2025

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.

2.

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).

1.

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.

4.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

5.

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

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →