CHANDRA VANU KAR,PATTAMUNDAI vs. ITO WARD KENDRAPARA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AT - DUHURIA BAZAR

Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, ld AR appeared for appeared for the assessee. Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order exparte without hearing the exparte without hearing the assessee. It was his submission that if one assessee. It was his submission that if one more opportunity is given the assessee would be in a position to cooperate more opportunity is given the assessee would be in a position to cooperate more opportunity is given the assessee would be in a position to cooperate

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the assessee has not represented his case before the ld CIT(A). Even no document or evidence has been filed in support of the claim of the assessee. Before me, ld AR has prayed to allow one more opportunity to present its case. I also find that the assessment in this case has been passed u/s.144 due to non-representation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500. In the event the cost is not paid, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.

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