SOMA BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WARD 30(4), KOLKATA

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

At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 602 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 602 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 2 ITANo.632/KOL/2025 being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the 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. CIT(A) 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 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. 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.