LATE GANGADHAR JENA THROUGH ACCOUNTABLE PERSON PRAMOD KISHORE JENA,PARADEEP vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

PDF

ITA 9/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. The assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing sufficient opportunity for a hearing and without allowing the assessee to produce evidence.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims and produce necessary evidence before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Shri Dulal Satyanarayan Jesthi, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR

Hearing: 25/02/2026Pronounced: 25/02/2026

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.