Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which had dismissed their appeals ex-parte. The assessee's AR submitted that the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The revenue supported the CIT(A) orders but agreed to restoration if cost was imposed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims with relevant documents before the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte dismissal. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-substantiation of claims should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, and if so, whether costs should be imposed on the assessee.
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 P.K. Jesthi, A.R. Department represented by Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 19/02/2026 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), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10139822 dated 15/10/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18 and in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10234323 dated 15/10/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 respectively.
Shri P.K. Jesthi, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR with Shri Vijay Singh, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed both the appeals 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 appeals afresh so that the & 642/Ctk/2025 Debabrata Mohanty Vs ITO assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld. Departmental Representatives 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.AO, then cost should be imposed in both the appeals.
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 both the appeals 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.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each in both the 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 AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned costs within the prescribed & 642/Ctk/2025 Debabrata Mohanty Vs ITO period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/02/2026.