RAMESH CHANDRA NAYAK,ROURKELA V. ACIT, ROURKELA

ITA 563/CTK/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ramesh Chandra Nayak against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was the inadequate opportunity provided to the assessee to present his case and evidence before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The assessee's representative argued for a restoration of the matter to allow the presentation of necessary evidence, while the Department's representative supported the original decisions, suggesting that a cost should be imposed for the restoration. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer but imposed a cost on the assessee for non-cooperation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838588 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2025
• 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. 563/CTK/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ramesh Chandra Nayak, Nabakrushna Nagar, Rourkela, Rourkela-769016 (Odisha). PAN No. ABFPN 5693 L Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-Rourkela, Rourkela. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Chitrasen Parida, A.R. Department represented by Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of hearing 17/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 17/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Sambalpur/10108/2018-19 dated 26/09/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld. A.R. is appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld. CIT-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee has not produced sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer and before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 563/Ctk/2025 Ramesh Chandra Nayak Vs ACIT 2 issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim. 4. In reply, ld CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issue is to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then a cost should be imposed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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 appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand 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 costs 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. 563/Ctk/2025 Ramesh Chandra Nayak Vs ACIT 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 17/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee - Ramesh Chandra Nayak, Nabakrushna Nagar, Rourkela, 2. Revenue- A.C.I.T., Circle-Rourkela, Rourkela. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cuttack Printed from counselvise.com "