RAJINDER KUMAR MODI, HUF,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(5),, KOLKATA

Shri Siddharth Agrawal, 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 437 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application supported with an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are not found to be false, therefore, the delay of 437 days in filing the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

It was the submission of the ld. AR 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 2 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.

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 before us requested for one more opportunity to produce the documents before the ld.CIT(A) to file all the details as required. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id.CIT(A) 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. CIT (A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively.