MR. ABHIJIT PATTNAIK,KHORDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHAWANIPATNA WARD, BHAWANIPATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 235/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 June 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the quantum appeals for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15 were passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the quantum appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) for the assessment year 2015-16, it was also sent back to the AO for a decision after the finalization of the fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee claimed to have submitted all relevant documents before the Assessing Officer (AO) through the department portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and penalty orders were passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) RL REDDY(KZ)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30/06/202Pronounced: 30/06/202

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA Nos.228/CTK/2025
ITA Nos.236/CTK/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

2.

At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee for both the assessment years. Ld AR before me produced a paper book containing 205 pages and submitted that these were produced before the AO through the department portal. He submitted that all the relevant documents were filed before the AO but the same were not considered. He submitted that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee would co- operate in set aside proceedings before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by filing necessary documentary evidences in support of the claim.

3.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that enough opportunities have been granted to the assessee and the AO has passed the order by considering all the facts of the case.

4.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the quantum appeals for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2014-15 have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessment orders have P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2015- Assessment Year : 2015-16 Assessment Year : 2014-15 been passed u/s.147/144 of the Act due to non-compliance of the notices issued by the AO. The contention of the ld AR is that all the documentary evidences were produced before the AO. Now, the ld AR has prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee will produce all the relevant documents and evidences in support of its claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the issues in both the quantum appeals are restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

With regard to penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act, I am of the view that in view of the restoration of the issue in quantum proceedings for the assessment year 2015-16, the instant penalties on such restored issue are also sent back to the AO for taking an appropriate decision after the finalization of the fresh assessment on the set aside proceedings.

6.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →