NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JHIRPANI, ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD 5, ROURKELA

Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR It was submitted by ld AR that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution by simply upholding the order of the prosecution by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any P a g e 1 | 3 satisfactory explanation supported by cogent material evidence, either during the course of assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter can be set aside and restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon orders of the authorities below, but fairly submitted that the matter can go back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte mainly on the ground that without assessee has not furnished any satisfactory explanation supported by cogent material evidence, either during the course of assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) issued notice of hearing on three occasions but the whole proceedings effectively were concluded by CIT(A) during the period of two months beginning from the issue of notice on 29th May, 2024 to 19th June, 2024, which culminated into an ex-parte order dated 12th July, 2024. Even the assessment order has been passed u/s.147/144 of the Act due to non-representation of the assessee. Now before us, ld AR undertakes that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would cooperate the set aside proceedings and produce all the relevant materials to substantiate his case. Thus, in our considered view, effective opportunity of hearing was not provided by ld. CIT(A) to the P a g e 2 | 3 assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It is also mentioned that in case of failure of the assessee to comply with the notices in the set aside proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) shall be free to pass such order as deemed fit ex-parte in accordance with law on merits and after complying with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.

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