DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CUTTACK vs. SANATAN BISHOI, CUTTACK

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

At the time of hearing, one Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Advocate At the time of hearing, one Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Advocate At the time of hearing, one Shri Gobardhan Sahoo, Advocate appeared, whose se Vakalatnama reads as follows:

The Vakalatama contains thumb impression, which is not supported by necessary affidavit. The advocate appearing in the Court was not in P a g e 2 | 4 uniform and the Tribunal has refused to hear him. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences and has not called for any remand report from the Assessing Officer and has blindly allowed the appeal of the assessee accepting the contention of the assessee without a speaking order. This being so, as it is noticed that the evidences which were not before the AO has been considered by the ld CIT(A) and no remand report has also been called for from the Assessing Officer, the order of the ld CIT(A) is set aside and the issues are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. Liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all such evidences before the AO as are required by him to support his claims. In the absence of providing details and non-cooperation before the AO, liberty is granted to the Assessing Officer to draw adverse inference.

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