M/S. MCML ECI JOINT VENTURE,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

None appeared for appeared for the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue.

We have heard ld CIT DR. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(Appeal-1) has passed the order exparte without the representation from the side of the assessee despite giving various opportunities. The only issue involved in the appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.8,02,17,911/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Perusal of the impugned order also shows that the CIT (A) has confirmed the addition as no materials or evidences could not be filed before him to support that the expenditure of Rs.8,02,17,911/- is not coming under the purview of section 194C for which section 40(a)(ia) has no implication on such payment. Perusal of the appeal records also shows that the assessee had requested for transfer of the file from Cuttack to Bangalore to pursue his case but the same has not been acceded to as the Assessing Officer in this case is from Cuttack. In view of above, in order to render substantial justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) to readjudicate the issues in the appeal afresh after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear suomoto before the ld CIT(A) and present his case with necessary documents and evidences. With these directions, the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld CIT(A).

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