Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeal as ex-parte. The assessee had not produced evidence before the AO but submitted them before the CIT(A), who did not admit them due to violation of Rule 46A. The assessee prayed for the issues to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce evidence. However, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee for its non-cooperative attitude.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed ex-parte or restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to produce evidence.
Sections Cited
Rule 46A of the IT Rule
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Charinangal Service Vs ITO Ward-Jajpur, Jajpur Cooperaztive Society Charinangal, PO: Charinangal, Jajpur, Odisha-754296 PAN No. : AABAC 6871 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu & Dr. Sanjay Behura, ARs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2019-2020 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee admittedly not produced the evidence before the AO. The assessee had produced the evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) . It was submission that the Ld.CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences on account of violation of provision of Rule 46A of the IT Rule. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, so that the assessee would be able to produce all the evidences before the AO. 3. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR vehemently supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). It was submission that the assessee was totally non- 2 cooperative before both the authorities below. It was the submission that the cost should be levied on the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it clearly shows that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as ex-parte. However, ld. AR requested for one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO to substantiate its case. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the recalcitrant attitude of the assessee, a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) is hereby imposed on the assessee to be payable at 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. AO at the first hearing. If the said cost is not paid within 60 days from the date order of this order, the order of the ld.CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. Liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all such documents as required to substantiate its case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 02/02/2026. (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ददनाांक Dated 02/02/2026 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.