BASANTA KUMAR DAS,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALESWAR CIRCLE, BALESWAR

Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Ld CIT DR has . Ld CIT DR has submitted an adjournment petition stating that as due to some official pre- submitted an adjournment petition stating that as due to some official pre submitted an adjournment petition stating that as due to some official pre

P a g e 1 | 4 to 149/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2008-09 and 2009-2010 occupation, he would not be attending the hearings. Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr DR appeared on behalf of the CIT DR. On perusal of appeal records, we find that the appeals can be disposed off in the absence of ld CIT DR, therefore, we reject the adjournment petition and proceed to decide the appeals on merits and after hearing ld AR and ld Sr DR.

We find that the orders u/s.263 of the Act have been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in & 258/CTK/2018 for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 order dated 31.10.2022. Consequently, the orders passed u/s.263 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act would also stand quashed. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the ld CIT(A) upholding such orders, which have been quashed would also get set aside.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed. & 148/CTK/2018 : AY:2008-09 & 2009-10

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders u/s.147/143(3) of the Act of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 8.1.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Cuttack/10890/2016-17 and No. CIT(A), Cuttack/10888/2016-17 for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009- 10, respectively.

The appeal in 19 days and the appeal in is delayed by 17 days. The assessee has P a g e 2 | 4 to 149/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2008-09 and 2009-2010 filed condonation petitions, stating therein that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non-verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the ld AR, the appeals could not be filed. It was requested to condone the delay in filing the appeals.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the condonation petitions, we find that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing.

Ld AR submitted that both the appeals have been passed by the ld CIT(A) exparte. It was his submission that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to putforth his grievance before the ld CIT(A).

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

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that substantial opportunities have been granted by ld CIT(A) as is evident from the order of the ld CIT(A). We also find that before the AO, the assessee could not produce the desired books of account and other relevant details despite given several opportunities except the appearance of ld AR. Before us, ld AR has prayed to grant one more opportunities to furnish the required details and participate in the set aside proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the ld CIT(A) and remit the P a g e 3 | 4 to 149/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2008-09 and 2009-2010 matter back to his file for readjudication after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one Thousand only) each 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 orders passed buy the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.