Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The assessee contended that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and sufficient evidence production. The revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim and produce required evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied sufficient opportunity of hearing and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
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 Chitrasen Parida, A.R. Department represented by Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of hearing 17/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 17/02/2026 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. CIT(A), Sambalpur/10108/2018-19 dated 26/09/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16.
Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld. A.R. is appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld. CIT-DR is 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 without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee has not produced sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer and before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the Ramesh Chandra Nayak Vs ACIT issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld CIT-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.
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.10,000/-(Rupees Ten 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. Ramesh Chandra Nayak Vs ACIT 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.