ADISESHA RAJU MANTENA, HYDERABAD V. ITO,Ward-1, Berhampur

ITA 228/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0906 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Adisesha Raju Mantena, Flat No.B-607, Aditya Sunshine, Khanamet, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084 PAN/GIR No (Appellant Per Bench These are of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi NFAC/2012-13/10123472 & NFAC/2014 years 2013-14 & 2015 2. None represented on behalf DR appeared for the revenue. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.228 & 229/CTK/20 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015 Adisesha Raju Mantena, Flat 607, Aditya Sunshine, Khanamet, Kondapur, 500084 Vs. JCIT, NFAC, Delhi PAN/GIR No.AFPPM 0519 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty Date of Hearing : 18/0 Date of Pronouncement : 18/0 O R D E R ese are appeals filed by the assessee against the of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi both dated 12.3.2024 13/10123472 & NFAC/2014-15/10123480 14 & 2015-16, respectively. None represented on behalf the assessee and Shri DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CTK/2024 14 & 2015-16 JCIT, NFAC, Delhi Respondent) : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 07/2024 /07/2024 filed by the assessee against the separate orders 12.3.2024 in Appeal Nos. 15/10123480 for the assessment the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. ITA Nos.228 & 229/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Page2 | 3 3. It was submitted by ld Sr DR that the assessee has not produced any evidence before the Assessing Officer or ld CIT(A) nor has any agreement or Power of Attorney for sale of property. It was the submission that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessment orders and the orders of ld CIT(A) for both the assessment years are liable to be upheld. 4. We have considered the submission of ld Sr DR. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has not produced the requisite evidences before the AO and ld CIT(A). It is also noticed that without the evidence is being filed before the lower authorities, it would not be possible for the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue or examine any of the materials. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA Nos.228 & 229/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Page3 | 3 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Adisesha Raju Mantena, Flat No.B-607, Aditya Sunshine, Khanamet, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084 2. The Respondent: JCIT, NFAC, Delhi 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//