MANOJ KUMAR ROUT,BALASORE V. ITO-WARD(1),BALASORE, BALASORE

ITA 15/CTK/2026

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Manoj Kumar Rout against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee's representative argued that due to the inability to file certain relevant documents, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing. However, due to the assessee's previous non-cooperation, a monetary cost was imposed as a deterrent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842299 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2026
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 15/CTK/2026 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Manoj Kumar Rout, Bhimpur, Haripur, Balasore, Balasore-756019 (Odisha) PAN No. ABNPR 4571 P Vs. I.T.O., Ward-(1), Balasore. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Natabar Panda, A.R. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10118983 dated 06/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order ex-parte without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was submitted that certain relevant documents could not be filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) in support of his claim, resulting in dismissal of appeal by the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 15/Ctk/2026 Manoj Kumar Rout Vs ITO 2 that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate his claim. 4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issues are to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then cost should be imposed in the appeal. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate his claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the Assessing Officer and in absence of the same, the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order ex parte. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. A.O. we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousands only) on the assessee, as admitted by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, to be payable to the 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 AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above-mentioned cost within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 15/Ctk/2026 Manoj Kumar Rout Vs ITO 3 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 25/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "