MANAS RANJAN PATTNAYAK,CHADRAGIRI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) without considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that the AO while making assessment, has not provided sufficient opportunity to produce the documents as 2 required. It was the prayer that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of AO for readjudication afresh and the assessee may kindly be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard.

In reply, ld. Sr.DR submitted that the assessee could not furnish any documents during the course of assessment before the AO to substantiate its claim. It was submitted that the assessee has filed incomplete additional evidence which does not in way buttress the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. Thus, it was the prayer of the ld. Sr. DR that orders of the authorities below should be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), shows that the assessee could not submit any documents before the AO, however, the assessee has filed additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings, which are incomplete. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee, we restore the issues to the file of ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 28/05/2024. (MANISH AGARWAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 28/05/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file.