LATE SOUMYA RANJAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR V. ITO-WARD-2(2),BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 373/CTK/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Neelachal Gramya Bank appealing against the orders of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, and CIT(A), Bhubaneswar, concerning assessments and penalties under sections 143(3)/147 and 221(1) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The primary contention of the assessee was the lack of adequate opportunity of hearing provided during the assessment and penalty proceedings, which was argued to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were criticized for not considering all returns filed by the assessee and for passing orders ex parte. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions, decided to restore the matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25932 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: PER BENCH; S B.K.MAHAPATRA; A.K.SABAT
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Assessment Year Neelachal Gramya Bank,190/702, Kokila Residency, Ananta Bihar, Airport Area Post Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Assessee by Per Bench ITA No.371 against the order of th No.CIT(A),Bhubaneswar 13//10014346 matter of assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.369 to 372 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Neelachal Gramya /702, Kokila Residency, Ananta Bihar, Area Post Office, Bhubaneswar Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar No.AAALN 0450 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : S/Shri B.K.Mahapatra and A.K.Sabat, CAs Revenue by : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT Date of Hearing : 30/9/202 Date of Pronouncement : 30/9/20 O R D E R 71 and 372/CTK/2024 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 10.7.202 CIT(A),Bhubaneswar-1/11032//2017-18 and for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013 matter of assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 14 2(1), Respondent) B.K.Mahapatra and A.K.Sabat, CAs aroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR 24 024 filed by the assessee e ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 10.7.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2012- 13 and 2013-14, in the ITA Nos.369 to 372 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 P a g e 2 | 4 2. ITA No.369/CTK/2024 and ITA No.370/CTK/2024 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.7.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10086/2018-19 and CIT(A), Bhubnaneswar- 1/10087/2018-19 for the assessment year 2012-13 & 2013-14, in the matter of penalty under section 221(1) of the Act. 3. Shri B.K.Mahapatra and A.K.Sabat, CAs appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has not given due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and passed the impugned orders exparte. It was the submission that the ld CIT (A) has given only one effective opportunity on 15.5.2024 by issuance of notice dated 2.5.2024. It was the further submission that the Assessing Officer has also not considered all the returns filed by the assessee during the original assessment as well as during reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that in the penalty proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee, therefore, the principle of natural justice has not been followed. Ld AR submitted that the appeals in regard to quantum as well as penalty be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) to readjudicate the issue on merits and the assessee would cooperate by filing all the necessary documents to substantiate its case. ITA Nos.369 to 372 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 P a g e 3 | 4 5. In reply, ld CIT DR did not have any objection in restoring the appeals to the file of the ld CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the quantum as well as penalty orders of the ld CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not been given due opportunity of hearing. In the Bar, the ld AR has requested to allow one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of above, the issues in the appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld CIT(A) is directed to readjudicate the quantum appeals and then to proceed for readjuidication of the penalty under section 221(1) of the Act after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the documentary evidences in support of its claims before the ld CIT(A), as it deems necessary. 7. In the result, all the appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/9/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 30/9/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA Nos.369 to 372 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 P a g e 4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, CUTTACK 1. The Appellant : Neelachal Gramya Bank,190/702, Kokila Residency, Ananta Bihar, Airport Area Post Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "