PRAKASH KUMAR KHUNTIA,JAJPUR V. ITO, WARD, JAJPUR

ITA 459/CTK/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Prakash Kumar Khuntia against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the CIT(A) without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard, which was argued to be against the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer had previously passed an assessment order under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance by the assessee in providing necessary documentary evidence. The Tribunal's decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer's file underscores the importance of procedural fairness in tax assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25992 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: P.R.MOHANTY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Prakash Kumar Khuntia, At/PO¨Bandalo, PS: Chihatia, Dist: Jajpur PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 18/10293330 for the ass 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1.For that, r.w.s. 144B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.459/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prakash Kumar Khuntia, At/PO¨Bandalo, PS: Chihatia, Dist: Jajpur Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Jajpur, Near Town Hall, Dala, Jajpur Road, Jajpur No.EUPPS 4067 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 25/11/20 Date of Pronouncement : 25/11/20 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ), NFAC, Delhi dated 4.6.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), for the assessment year 2018-19. P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. The assessee has raised following grounds: For that, the assessment order passed U/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the 1.T. Act, 1961, by NFAC, Delhi on P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Ward Near Town Hall, Dala, Jajpur Road, Jajpur Respondent) Adv : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 2024 024 appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal No.CIT(A),NFAC/2017- the assessee and Shri d U/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the 1.T. Act, 1961, by NFAC, Delhi on ITA No.459/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 P a g e 3 | 4 5. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice. Ld AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has also passed the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act. He prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee undertakes to represent his case before the Assessing Officer. 6. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that sufficient opportunities have been provided by the AO and ld CIT(A) but the assessee has failed to comply with the notices. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that four notices have been sent to the assessee but there was no response from the side of the assessee and the ld CIT(A) has not responded to the same, for which, ld CIT(A) has compelled to dismiss the appeal. It is also observed that the assessment order has been passed u/s.144 of the Act as the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidences. It is also observed that the ld CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee failed to make any submissions in support of the grounds of appeal and simply dismissed the appeal without considering the issue on merits. In view of above, we are of the view that the assessee has not been provided sufficient opportunities and there was no discussion "