M S INFRAENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, CA

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Hearing: 29/0Pronounced: 29/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 M S Infra Engineers Pvt ltd., M S Infra Engineers Pvt ltd., Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner of of Near Balashram, Nuapada, Near Balashram, Nuapada, Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.AAHCM 3587 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, CA Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 29/0 07/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated dated 28.3.2024 28.3.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10377/2016 CIT(A),Cuttack/10377/2016-17 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2012-13.

Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, ld AR appeared for d AR appeared for 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( It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte without giving adequate opportunity of appeal of the assessee exparte without giving adequate opportunity of appeal of the assessee exparte without giving adequate opportunity of P a g e 1 | 3 hearing to the assessee. It was his prayer that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee will explain each and every claim before the CIT(A) and requested to restore the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A).

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has given multiple opportunities to the assessee to present his case with documentary evidence but the assessee has failed to do so. Now, the ld AR undertakes at the Bar that the assessee is in a position to explain each and every claims with documentary evidences before the ld CIT(A). In view of above, in the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.. The assessee is also directed to furnish the documentary evidences, as deem fit, to substantiate its claim before the CIT(A), failing which, the CIT(A) is at liberty to adjudicate the issue afresh as per law.

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

M S INFRAENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK