KARTICK MALLICK,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, BANKURA

It was the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee could not provide the details before the Assessing Officer in its entirety. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) without affording sufficient opportunity has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A), so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld.CIT (A).

In reply, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.

4. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee was unable to furnish the details as asked for. A further perusal of impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the appellate proceedings. However, ld. AR, at outset, requested for one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the ld.CIT(A). In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, I restore the issues to the file of Id.CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/07/2025. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 09/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2.