BIJAY KUMAR NAYAK,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 72/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was noncompliant during assessment proceedings and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without a speaking order. For the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals are against the orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2017-18 and 2015-16. The assessee's representative argued that the Assessing Officer made additions without sufficient opportunity, and the CIT(A) affirmed this without appreciating the facts, requesting a restoration of the issue for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), and if the matter should be restored for re-adjudication with full opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra & Shri Himanshu Jena, Shri
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT, DR
Hearing: 09.04.2025Pronounced: 09.04.2025

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.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →