Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee's representative argued that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' orders.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim and produce necessary documents before the lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a cost imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act
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 Prashant Kumar Mishra, A.R. Department represented by 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. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10117602 dated 29/09/2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14.
Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and 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 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 Rani Epari Vs ITO assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its 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.AO, then cost should be imposed in the appeal.
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 assessment proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. A.O. we impose a cost of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty 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.