Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without sufficient opportunity for hearing or evidence submission. The revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' orders.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims with relevant documents and evidence before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeals for non-submission of evidence and lack of opportunity for hearing, and if the matter should be remanded.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
Assessee represented by Shri Dulal Satyanarayan Jesthi, A.R. 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. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2 all dated 29/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively.
Shri Dulal Satyanarayan Jesthi, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed all these appeals of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee has not produced sufficient evidence before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the to 09/Ctk/2026 Late Gangadhar Jena Vs D/ACIT issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate his claim.
In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issues are to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A), then a cost should be imposed.
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 all these four appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) 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) each in all these appeals, 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 ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned costs within the to 09/Ctk/2026 Late Gangadhar Jena Vs D/ACIT prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026.