Utkal Steels Ltd., Rourkela V. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

ITA 89/CTK/2020

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Utkal Steels Ltd. against the order of the CIT(A), Sambalpur, which was dated 21.11.2019. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2009-2010 under sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention of the assessee was that the CIT(A) had passed an order ex parte without adequately hearing the assessee, and that the issue was not properly examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that although several opportunities were given to the assessee, they repeatedly sought adjournments, leading the CIT(A) to decide the appeal based on the available records.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300473 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Utkal Steels Ltd., 3 Shree Complex, Main Road, Uditnagar, Rourkela PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Sambalpur dated 21.11.2019 matter of assessment u/s.147/143(3) of the Act 2009-2010. 2. Shri Sidharth Ray Kumar Mohapatra. Ld CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.89/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Utkal Steels Ltd., 3 rd floor, Shree Complex, Main Road, Uditnagar, Rourkela Vs. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela PAN/GIR No.AAACU 2254 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri Saroj Kumar Mohapatra Date of Hearing : 18/07 Date of Pronouncement : 18/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld , Sambalpur dated 21.11.2019 in Appeal No.0049/2014 matter of assessment u/s.147/143(3) of the Act for the assessment year Shri Sidharth Ray, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Kumar Mohapatra. Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER AND WAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2010 DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Respondent) : Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. Advocate Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR 7/2023 /07/2023 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld .0049/2014-15, in the for the assessment year , ld AR appeared for the assessee and Sri Saroj DR appeared for the revenue. ITA No.89/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Page2 | 4 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order exparte without hearing the assessee. It was the submission that the issue in the appeal is not examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It was the submission that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the parties who had taken loan and did not return the amount to the assessee. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that several opportunities were afforded to the assessee but the assessee did not bother to respond the notices issued by ld CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The limited grievance of the assessee is against exparte disposal of the appeal by the ld CIT(A). It was the submission by the ld AR that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee in hearing of the appeal. Perusal of the impugned order shows that four opportunities have been granted to the assessee but in every time, the assessee chose to seek adjournment, therefore, ld CIT(A) had no option but to decide the appeal on the basis of material on record. The only reason given by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order that the assessee has not filed any reply in support of its appeal nor has it filed any document controverting the facts relied upon and furnished any specific details regarding the source of cash deposit. Before us, ld Sr ITA No.89/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Page3 | 4 Advocate submits that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue in proper prospective as to whether the parties who had taken loan from the assessee company and did not pay the amount. Considering the non- compliance made by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and also the Assessing Officer, a cost of Rs.5000/- is being levied on the assessee. Subject to the assessee paying the cost of Rs.5,000/- under the head “others” to be paid online and production of the receipt, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for reajudication after granting the assessee adeqaute opportunity to substantiate its case. At the same time, we also direct the assessee to cooperate with the Assessing Officer for doing the assessment denovo. With these observations, the appeal is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18/07/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.89/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Utkal Steels Ltd., 3 rd floor, Shree Complex, Main Road, Uditnagar, Rourkela 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela 3. The CIT(A)-Sambalpur 4. Pr.CIT-, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//