BENUDHAR PARIDA,PHULANAKHARA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri M.R.Sarangi, Advocates appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for non-prosecution. It was submitted that the assessee was under the presumption that the physical hearing would be granted to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee may be granted another opportunity of being heard before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that in the course of assessment the notices have been issued to the assessee on account of large cash deposit in the bank account. It was the submission that though the cash book had been 2 uploaded but the assessee was unable to explain before the AO. It was the submission that if the issues are restored to the file of AO, the assessee would be in a position to explain the cash book properly.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that in page 2 of the assessment order the AO recognises that the assessee has responded on 28.10.2019 and has uploaded written submission, sales ledger account, cash book, dealer annual return summary but the same were not visible in the system of the department. The assessment has been passed on 14.11.2019. In these circumstances, so as to meet the ends of justice for both the assessee and the department for proper verification of the facts, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of AO for readjudication 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 14/03/2024. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 14/03/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.