TRILOCAHN MISHRA,KHORDA vs. ITO, KHORDA WARD, KHORDA, KHORDA

Though, the ld. AR did not appear on behalf of the assessee, however, he has filed an adjournment application seeking adjournment on the ground which, in our opinion, is not a plausible one. Accordingly, the adjournment application is rejected and both the appeals of the assessee are heard finally.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), shows that the notices were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not response to the same, neither any reply has been filed by the assessee. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) during the readjudication proceedings, positively.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2024. (MANISH AGARWAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 28/08/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant-