SRI BRUNDABATI ENTERPRISES,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: MANISH AGARWAL
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 ITA No.29/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Brundabati Enterprises, Sri Brundabati Enterprises, Vs. ITO, Ward 1 ITO, Ward 1(1), Malgodown, Cuttack Malgodown, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.ADOFS 0762 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 20/0 05/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20/0 /05/2024 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), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 21.12.2023 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.CIT(A) NFAC/2017- 18/10022455 for the assessment year 2018-19.
None appeared for appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition . However, an adjournment petition is placed on record. As the appeal can be decided in the absence of the is placed on record. As the appeal can be decided in the absence of the is placed on record. As the appeal can be decided in the absence of the assessee, we we reject the adjournment petition and procee proceed to decide the appeal after hearing ld Sr. DR. appeal after hearing ld Sr. DR. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld SR DR i S.C.Mohanty, ld SR DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 3
ITA No.29/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
Ld Sr DR submitted that the assessee has not represented before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has given detailed reasons in his order and the same is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the submission of ld Sr DR. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has given five notices. It is also noticed that the assessee has not responded to the said notices. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its claim.
Here, we may also mention that the ld CIT(A) is sending the notices through ITBA portal and as per the law and the provisions that procedure has supposed to be done. However, it is also noticed that many a times, assesses are unaware of the notices of being issued insofar as many a times, the email given are that of the assessee’s counsel and many a times, the notices may pass on to junk or spam folders, which is obviously not noticed. It is recommended that in the interest of justice and fairplay, the ld CIT(A) may consider issue of notice in physical form also when it is noticed that the assessee is not responding to the notice and the assessee also does not receive notice in their email address or the notice may be
P a g e 2 | 3
ITA No.29/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
issued through Assessing Officer. This could be considered at least till the assessee become aware of the online procedure.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/05/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 20/05/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: Sri Brundabati Enterprises, Malgodown, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward -1(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 3 | 3
