HARISH KUMAR KAYAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO,WARD 3 - ROURKELA, ROURKELA
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.377/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Harish Kumar Kayal, Harish Kumar Kayal, C/O. Vs. ITO, Ward -3, Kadmawala Kadmawala & & Co., Co., CA, CA, Rourkela Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market Market Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela Rourkela- 769012 PAN/GIR No. No.AFJPK 6967 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.R.Sahu, CA Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18/11/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 18/11/20 024 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 CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 13.8.2024 CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 13.8.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No. NFAC/2017- 18/10232831 for the ass for the assessment year 2018-19.
Shri M.R.Sahu, M.R.Sahu, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 3
ITA No.377/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to non-prosecution ignoring the adjournment petition, thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice. It was the submission that the appeal may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the assessee to represent his case before the ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee has been given notices on three occasions as is evident from the order of the ld CIT(A) at page 13 i.e. on 8.1.2024, 29.6.2024 & 25.7.2024 through ITBA system via e-mail Id provided in the ITBA portal and in Form No.35. The assessee has also filed adjournment petition to adjourn the case. However, the ld CIT(A) has not considered the adjournment petition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the notices issued by the ld CIT(A). Before us, ld AR that submitted that the assessee has not been given adequate opportunity of hearing. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. Ld AR has raised the legal P a g e 2 | 3
ITA No.377/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
ground relating to the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing at the time of hearing before the bench. Liberty is granted to the assessee to raise all such grounds as are deemed necessary by him before the ld CIT(A) in proper defense of his appeal.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/11/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18/11/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Harish Kumar Kayal, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., CA, Budhram Oram Market Kachery Road, Rourkela-769012 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward -3, Rourkela 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 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
