NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

Shri B.K.Mahapatra and A.K.Sabat, CAs appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has not given due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and passed the impugned orders exparte. It was the submission that the ld CIT (A) has given only one effective opportunity on 15.5.2024 by issuance of notice dated 2.5.2024. It was the further submission that the Assessing Officer has also not considered all the returns filed by the assessee during the original assessment as well as during reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that in the penalty proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee, therefore, the principle of natural justice has not been followed. Ld AR submitted that the appeals in regard to quantum as well as penalty be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) to readjudicate the issue on merits and the assessee would cooperate by filing all the necessary documents to substantiate its case.

In reply, ld CIT DR did not have any objection in restoring the appeals to the file of the ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the quantum as well as penalty orders of the ld CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not been given due opportunity of hearing. In the Bar, the ld AR has requested to allow one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of above, the issues in the appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld CIT(A) is directed to readjudicate the quantum appeals and then to proceed for readjuidication of the penalty under section 221(1) of the Act after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the documentary evidences in support of its claims before the ld CIT(A), as it deems necessary.

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