Saket Khaitan, Rourkela V. ACIT , Sambalpur

ITA 184/CTK/2022

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Kiran Devi Khaitan and Saket Khaitan against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The appeals were initially dismissed due to the non-cooperation of the assesses and their repeated requests for adjournments. The Tribunal noted the non-cooperative behavior of the assesses and their failure to represent themselves adequately at various stages. However, to ensure fairness, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for a detailed re-examination, instructing the CIT(A) to provide a comprehensive speaking order post-hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300248 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year Kiran Devi Khaitan,Prop. M/s. Sri Ganapati Enterprises, CC Township, Rourkela PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Sri Saket Khaitan,Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Enterprises, CC-5, Civil Township, Rourkela PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench ITA No assessee-Kiran Devi Khaitan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.180, 181 & 182/CTK/20 Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015 Kiran Devi Khaitan,Prop. M/s. Sri Ganapati Enterprises, CC-5, Civil Township, Rourkela Vs. ACIT, Sambalpur PAN/GIR No. AHLOPK 5747 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent ITA Nos. 183 & 184/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015 Sri Saket Khaitan,Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Enterprises, 5, Civil Township, Vs. ACIT, Sambalpur PAN/GIR No. AODPK 3419 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, Date of Hearing : 7/02 Date of Pronouncement : 7/02 O R D E R ITA Nos. 180, 181 & 182/CTK/2022 Kiran Devi Khaitan against the separate Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CTK/2022 15 & 2015-16 ACIT, Sambalpur Respondent) 183 & 184/CTK/2022 14 & 2015-16 ACIT, Sambalpur Respondent) M.K.Gautam, CIT DR 2/2023 2/2023 s. 180, 181 & 182/CTK/2022 are filed by the separate orders of the ld ITA Nos.180, 181 & 182./CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos. 183 & 184/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Page2 | 4 CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar all dated 28.1.2022 in Appeal No. 2/10532/2018-19, No.2/10522/2018-19 and No.2/10523/2018-19 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. ITA Nos. 183, & 184/CTK/2022 are filed by the assessee-Saket Khaitan against the separate orders of the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar all dated 28.1.2022 in Appeal No. 2/10520/2018-19 and No.2/10530/2018-19 for assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16. 3. None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment letter has been filed by the assessee intimating that the advocate of the assessee is suffering from cold and fever. The reasons given are unsubstantiated and consequently, the adjournment has been rejected and the appeals of the assesses are being disposed of on merits. 3. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 4. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the assessee has been non-cooperative before the AO in most of the years and the assessee has not represented the appeals before the ld CIT(A) even though substantial opportunities have been provided. It was the submission that the orders of the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO are liable to be sustained. 5. We have considered the submissions. A perusal of the orders of the ld CIT(A) in para 4 show that three opportunities ITA Nos.180, 181 & 182./CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos. 183 & 184/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Page3 | 4 have been granted to the assessee. In all the cases, it is noticed that the assessee has submitted before the ld CIT(A) that Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan is looking after all over the case records and he was medically unfit. Consequently, the assessee had sought adjournment before the ld CIT(A). Thus, clearly, the assesses are continuously seeking adjournment on one ground or others and are not serious in respect of adjudication of their appeals. However, so as to grant the assesses a final opportunity to set right their case, we are of the view that the issues must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing and we do so. 6. A perusal of the orders of the ld CIT(A) also show that though the ld CIT(A) has passed exparte order, the order is not a speaking order in respect of the merits or on legal issues. This being so, it is advised that the ld CIT(A) when adjudicating the appeals may pass a detailed speaking order after getting requisite remand report from the Assessing Officer. Should the assessee continue its non-cooperative attitude in the set aside proceedings, liberty is granted to the ld CIT(A) to draw adverse inference. ITA Nos.180, 181 & 182./CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos. 183 & 184/CTK/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Page4 | 4 7. In the result, appeals of the assesses are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/02/2023. SD/- SD/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 07/02/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Kiran Devi Khaitan/Saket Khaitan. 2. The Respondent:ACIT, Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-,2 Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-,-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//