M/S. OM ASSOCIATES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT observed that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on multiple hearing dates. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its appeal before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the AO's assessment. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to income by disallowing expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) for van hire and office rent.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of expenditure without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM
आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.247/CTK/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/s OM Associates, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Lane-4, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAFO 8711 C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Niranjan Panda, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 28/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 28/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 23.3.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. For that the order of the learned C.I.T Appeal - 1, Bhubaneswar dated 23.03.2016 passed in Appeal No. ITA-0396/15-16 confirming the assessment order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar hereinafter referred to as learned `A.0' is not just and legal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition to the extent of Rs.42,61,786/- to the returned income of the appellant disallowing the expenditure U/s.40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act 1961 for Rs. 37,67,036/- and Rs. 7,94,750/- for Van Hire Charges and Office Rent respectively on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the contentions raised & documents submitted by the appellant in the course of assessment / appeal proceedings & without giving reasonable opportunity and without assigning any valid & cogent reasons confirmed THE Demand vide order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhubneswar.
2 ITA No.247/CTK/2016 4. For that other grounds if any would be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. We have perused the orders of CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) has observed that he had fixed the appeal for hearing on 17.02.2016 & 4.3.2016 and finally on 13.03.2016 and none of the date the assessee put in an appearance before him or submitted any written arguments in support of his grounds of appeal and, therefore, he confirmed the order of the AO. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that in order to render substantial justice to the assessee, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present its appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) within a period of one month from the date of this order to fix the date of hearing. The assessee is further directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) in disposing off the appeal expeditiously and to file all evidences and documents on which it wishes to rely upon as and when called upon to do so by the CIT(A). Further, the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass any order as he may deem fit in the matter, if the assessee does not cooperate with him in disposing of the appeal expeditiously by filing relevant details and documents called for by him. With this direction, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3 ITA No.247/CTK/2016 Order pronounced in the open court on this 28/12/2017. Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N. S. SAINI) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनांक Dated 28/12/2017 प्र.कु.मि/PKM, Senior Private Secretary आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 1. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. गार्ड फाईऱ / Guard file. 6. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026