RAJU ADHIKARY ,HOWRAH vs. ITO,WD.-46(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. That the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the case on merits. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that in fact the assessee has duly uploaded written submissions on the Income Tax Portal, however, the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the written submissions filed by the assessee and wrongly dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raju Adhikary ld. Counsel in this respect has relied upon a copy of online acknowledgement. The ld. Counsel has, therefore, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee on merits.

At this stage, the ld. DR has submitted that even before the Assessing Officer, certain compliances were not made by the assessee. That the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper appreciation of facts and issues involved.

4. Considering the above submissions of the ld. DR, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.