Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-2019. It was admitted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the Assessing Officer (AO) and was non-cooperative before both lower authorities. The assessee requested that the issues be restored to the AO for readjudication.
Held
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to the authorities below, restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the issues in the appeal should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication, given the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to furnish necessary details before lower authorities.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH”, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Ulka Sarkar, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), CR Road-1, RD. No.7, Jamshedpur Extn Dalma View Colony, Sonari, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831011 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AVTPS 3114 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.03.2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019.
Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, ld.AR represented on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submission that admittedly before the AO the assessee did not provide the details. It was prayer that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of the AO and that the assessee would explain transactions before the AO.
In reply, the ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection.