P A G E 1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO . 13 /CTK/20 20 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 0 - 2011 MADMIT VENTURES PRIVATE LTD., (ERSTWHILE GUPTA MARBLES PVT LTD.,) SAHEJ SUCCESS 3E, 2 ND FLOOR, NEAR NEW COURT BUILDING, UDITNAGAR, ROURKELA. VS. ITO, WARD 5, ROURKELA. PAN/GIR NO. AABCG 2033 K (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BASUDEV PANDA , ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI J.K.LENKA , DR DATE OF HEARING : 14 / 0 2 / 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 / 0 2 / 2020 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), SAMBALPUR DATED 20.9.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE G.P. DRAWN ON AVERAGE BASIS IS NOT ENTERTAINABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE GROSS PROFIT AT RS.11,43,760.29 PAISE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE CARRIAGE INWARD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,72,168/ - HAS BEEN DEDUCTED OTHERWISE THE G.P. WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCRUED AT RS.17,15,928.29 PAISE WHICH IS MORE THAN THE G.P.DRAWN BY THE AO TOTALING TO RS.14,43 ,983.17 PAISE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER QUASHED ALONGWITH ADDITION OF RS.3,05,844.88 PAISE IS TO BE DELETED. 2. FOR THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND OTHER EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN TOTO BECAUSE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF T HE MD OUT OF THE INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN USE OF THE BUSINESS. SO THE EXPENSES IS ENTIRELY TO BE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION MADE IS LIABLE TO DELETED AND REJECTED. ITA NO.13/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 P A G E 2 | 3 3. FOR THE ADDITION MADE U/S.40A(3) ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM AGRASEN MARB LE WAS PURCHASED ON CREDIT ON 10.8.2009 AND SUBSEQUENT ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE BETWEEN THE TWO FIRMS. HENCE, NOT LIABLE TO ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) PASSED EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT AFFOR DING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, HE PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), TO WHICH, LD D.R. DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PASSED EXPARTE ORDER CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CASE ON MERITS, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A CRYPTIC ORDER. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD A.R. REQUESTED THE BENCH TO AFFORD ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL/EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ON THE BASIS OF ANY MATERIAL GATHERED BY HIM . THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE WITH THE LD CIT(A) AS UNDERTAKEN FOR DISPOSA L OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14 / 0 2 /20 20 . SD/ - ( CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED / 0 2 /20 20 B.K.PARIDA, SPS ITA NO.13/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 P A G E 3 | 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR . PVT. S ECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : MADMIT VENTURES PRIVATE LTD., (ERSTWHILE GUPTA MARBLES PVT LTD.,) SAHEJ SUCCESS 3E, 2 ND FLOOR, NEAR NEW COURT BUILDING, UDITNAGAR, ROURKELA. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD 5, ROURKELA 3. THE CIT(A) - , SAMBALPUR 4. PR.CIT - , SAMBALPUR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//