RAJ KISHOR DEO,KUCHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 JHARSUGUDA, JHARSUGUDA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.443/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Raj Raj Kishore Kishore Deo, Deo, Wine Wine Vs. Income Income Tax Tax Officer, Officer, Corner, Kuchinda Sambalpur Corner, Kuchinda Sambalpur Jharsuguda PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AJHPD 3194 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai 9, Mumbai dated 30.8.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.CIT(A), Samb alpur/10113/2015 alpur/10113/2015-16 for the assessment year 2012-13.
None appeared for appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue.
We have considered the submissions of ld Sr DR. A perusal of the We have considered the submissions of ld Sr DR. A perusal of the We have considered the submissions of ld Sr DR. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that despite giving several opportunities of impugned order clearly shows that despite giving several opportunities of impugned order clearly shows that despite giving several opportunities of hearing, the assessee failed to make any submissions or file documentary assessee failed to make any submissions or file documentary assessee failed to make any submissions or file documentary
P a g e 1 | 3
ITA No.443/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13
evidence in support of his claim. Therefore, the ld JCIT(A) was compelled to dispose the appeal of the assessee by confirming various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Before us also, the assessee has not come forward to dispute the order of the ld JCIT(A). However, when the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, it seems that he is vigilant to represent his case before the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make any representation before the ld JCIT(A), in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld JCIT(A) and restore the matter back again to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the assessee fails to represent his case or furnish any documentary evidences, the JCIT is free to decide the issues on merits.
4.. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31/12/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)
P a g e 2 | 3
ITA No.443/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Raj Kishore Deo, Wine Corner, Kuchinda Sambalpur 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Jharsuguda 3. The JCIT(A(9), Mumbai 4. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 3 | 3
