BIJAY KUMAR NAYAK,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE
Facts
The assessee's appeals were against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2015-16. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer made additions without providing sufficient opportunity and that the CIT(A) affirmed this without appreciating the facts. The revenue contended that opportunities were given, but the assessee failed to produce documents.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was noncompliant during assessment and the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's order without a speaking order, relying on a previous court decision. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity for assessment and whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order.
Sections Cited
250, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Bench :
These captioned appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072274031(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2024-25/ 10722770618(1) both dated 17.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2017-18 and 2015-16 respectively.
2 ITA Nos.72 & 73/CTK/2025 Bijay Kumar Nayak, AY 2017-18 & 2015-16
Shri P. K. Mishra & Shri Himanshu Jena, Shri Narahari Swain, Advocates represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer has made additions without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also affirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts. It was, thus, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh enabling the assessee to file the relevant documents to substantiate his claim before the Assessing Officer.
In reply, the Ld. CIT, DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.
5 We have heard rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee was noncompliant before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Even a perusal of appellate order clearly shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 10 CTR 354 without passing a speaking order. That being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appear are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the documentary evidence to substantiate his case during the course of re-adjudication proceeding before the Assessing Officer positively.
3 ITA Nos.72 & 73/CTK/2025 Bijay Kumar Nayak, AY 2017-18 & 2015-16
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 9th April, 2025
JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Shri Bijay Kumar Nayak, Balasore 1. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1, Balasore 2. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 3. Pr. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file.
