ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,CUTTACK vs. ITO,WARD--1, CUTTACK

Shri Sanjay Acharya, Sanjay Acharya, 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.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-representation by the assessee. It was his prayer that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee will cooperate in the set aside proceedings and produce all such documents as required by the ld CIT(A). To this request, ld Sr DR did not have any serious objection.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of ld CIT(A) shows that he has given three opportunities to the assessee to represent his case but there was no response from the side of the assessee, which was compelled by the ld CIT(A) to pass the order. Now, ld AR prayed for one more opportunity as due to some compelling situation, the assessee could not furnish the required documents before the ld CIT(A) and substantiate his arguments on the additions. Hence, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is allowed to the assessee to substantiate his case before the ld CIT(A), who shall pass the order after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It may be mentioned that since the assessee did not cause appearance before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is directed to promptly comply with all notices of hearing and in case of any further default on part of the assessee to cause appearance, Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass orders on the basis of materials available on record, in accordance with law.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.