DEBASIS BEHERA,SARALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD KEONJHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 46/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim and produce required evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, which dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee's representative submitted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper hearing and requested it to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee had failed to substantiate its claim with relevant documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte dismissal and failure to produce evidence?

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 GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Shri Digant Das, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR
Hearing: 25/02/2026Pronounced: 25/02/2026

Assessee represented by Shri Digant Das, AR Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR Date of hearing 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10264799 dated 27/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

Shri Digant Das, ld. A.R. is appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim.

4.

In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issue is to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then a cost should be imposed.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five Thousand only) on the assessee, as admitted by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack- 753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →