RUTURAJ SAMANTARA,JATNI vs. ITO,KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

Shri Jaish Joshi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri Jaish Joshi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri Jaish Joshi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has passed order It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has passed order It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has passed order exparte without hearing the assessee. It was the submission that the exparte without hearing the assessee. It was the submission that the exparte without hearing the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee could not follow up action under the new faceless appeal scheme could not follow up action under the new faceless appeal scheme could not follow up action under the new faceless appeal scheme

P a g e 1 | 3 as he has no knowledge of operating the computer system. It was the submission that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would cooperate the ld CIT(A) for disposal of the appeal.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that several opportunities were afforded to the assessee but the assessee did not bother to respond the notices issued by ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. The limited grievance of the assessee is against exparte disposal of the appeal by the ld CIT(A), NFAC. It was the submission by the ld AR that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee in hearing of the appeal. Perusal of the impugned order shows that three opportunities have been granted to the assessee, but there was no response from the side of the assessee. It was in this backdrop that the ld CIT(A) decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material on record. The only reason given by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order that the assessee has not filed any reply in support of its appeal nor has it filed any document to prove his side. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the ld CIT(A). Consequently, I set aside the impugned order of ld CIT (A) and restore the issues back to him for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, I also direct the assessee to cooperate the ld

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