CHITTA RANJAN SAHOO,JAJPUR vs ITO, JAJPUR

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: MANISH BORAD & MANISH BORAD & MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mishra

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Add;

Pronounced: 22/10

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee ag This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ainst the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhir dated 15.3.2021 dated 15.3.2021 for the assessment year assessment year 2017-18.

In Ground No.2 of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the In Ground No.2 of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the In Ground No.2 of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) has passed order without following reasonable opportunity of ld CIT(A) has passed order without following reasonable opportunity of ld CIT(A) has passed order without following reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A), (NFAC), Delhi Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A), (NFAC), Delhi Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A), (NFAC), Delhi has passed the order exparte wit has passed the order exparte without following the principle of natural hout following the principle of natural justice as no reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He justice as no reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He justice as no reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He

P a g e 1 | 3 submitted that if one more opportunity is allowed, the assessee will provide all the relevant materials in support of his case. It was, therefore, his prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration.

Having heard the rival submissions, on perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, we find that the appeal was dismissed exparte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee in a mechanical manner. We also find that the assessment was framed u/s.144 of the Act. Therefore, to render substantial justice to the assessee, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass a denovo order after allowing proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Assessing Officer for quick disposal of the matter. With these directions, the appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

CHITTA RANJAN SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. ITO, JAJPUR