RANJAN KUMAR SAHU,KEONJHAR vs. ITO, WARD, KEONJHAR
Facts
The assessee's appeals were against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) because the assessee was not present before the lower authorities and failed to provide details. The assessee also did not appear before the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 15,000/- per appeal was imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be allowed or dismissed considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's non-appearance.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.743&744/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ranjan Kumar Sahu ITO, Ward-Keonjhar, Keonjhar S/o Parameswar Sahu, AT- Vs Kainda, P.O-Turumunga, Dist-Keonjhar, Odisha- 758046. (PAN: DVLPS6046F) (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026
ORDER PER BENCH: Both the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2017-18/10497653 & NFAC/2017-18/10497652 both dated 19.11.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 respectively. Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals were
ITA No.743&744/CTK/2025 heard together and we are going to dispose of these appeals by passing a consolidated order. 2. Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
A perusal of the facts in the present appeals shows that both the orders of the ld. CIT(A) are ex parte orders in so far as the assessee was not present before the lower authorities. It is also noticed that admittedly, the assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer and also failed to provide all the details before the ld. CIT(A) also. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in both the appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings as well as in the assessment proceedings, we impose a cost of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) for each appeal on the assessee to be payable to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
ITA No.743&744/CTK/2025 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 16th March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member
Dated: 16.03.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
