SAI ENGINEERING,ANGUL vs. ITO WARD- 1(3), JAMSHEDPUR

None appeared appeared on behalf of assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya Khubchand T Pandya, ld. Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

The ld. . Sr. DR submitted that various notices were issued by the submitted that various notices were issued by the revenue authorities to the assessee but no compliance was made by the revenue authorities to the assessee but no compliance was made by the revenue authorities to the assessee but no compliance was made by the P a g e 1 | 3 assessee. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the AO and the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld CIT(A) has given various opportunities to the assessee to represent its case and file all relevant documents in support of the claim which has been mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order. However, the assessee on 27/12/2023 has replied that the notice was not readable. The ld. CIT(A) had issued notices dated 03/01/2024, 30/01/2024 and 21/02/2024 to the assessee and the same were served to the assessee but the assessee has not responded the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, ld CIT(A) had no option but to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits on the basis of materials available on record, although the appeal was not maintainable as per law. Before us, none has appeared on behalf of assessee to represent its case. In view of above, in order to render substantial justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the assessee to the Jharkhand Tax Bar Association within one month from the date of this order and receipt of payment be produced before the Assessing Officer. The liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all the relevant documents, evidences and other details as are required to prove his case before the ld. CIT(A).