JAYNTA KUMAR MAITRA,SARENGABAD BUDGE BUDGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOLKATA

Shri Arka Ghosh, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

The appeal of the assessee is barred by 01 day. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay which are not found false. Accordingly, the delay of 01 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

It was the submission of the ld. AR that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may 2 ITANo.257/KOL/2025 be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld.AO.

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. AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.

A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee was unable to furnish details as called for by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 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 before us requested for one more opportunity to produce the documents before the ld.AO to file all the details as required. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. AO for readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. Assessing Officer in the readjudication proceedings, positively.