SRI ACHYUTA KUMAR DHAL,BALASORE vs. ITO WARD-2, BALASORE

Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Charan Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Charan Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. Dass, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal was It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal was It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal was against the addition of Rs. against the addition of Rs.30,96,000/- confirmed by the ld CIT(A). rmed by the ld CIT(A).

In respect of purchased of land by the assessee, it was the submission that the assessee is trading in fish feeds. The assessee had sold immovable property to Shri Kamala Kanta Barik at Kuradhia, Haladipada, Balasore. As the said person had been unable to make the payment, he had sold the land owned by him for the said consideration to the assessee. It was the submission that admittedly before the AO, adequate evidences seems have not been produced and there has been non-representation before the ld CIT(A). it was also the submission that there was other disallowance of Rs.1,32,926/- on account of interest paid on various hand loans. In respect of the same also, it was submitted that adequate evidences were not produced before the AO. It was the submission that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to produce all such evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently opposed to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the assessee had been granted adequate opportunity and the assessee, having failed to produce the evidences, should not be given another opportunity.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer mentions that the assessee has not produced any evidences in respect of both the additions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee has not P a g e 2 | 3 represented before the ld CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, as the ld AR has also submitted that the assessee will cooperate in the set aside proceedings, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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