IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Suresh Kumar Sahoo, Patitapababa Patana, Nimarapa, Dist:Puri PAN/GIR No (Appellant This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai No.CIT(A),Bhubaneswar 18. 2. Shri B.K.Mahapatra, S.C.Mohanty, 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without properly considering the documents and legal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL ITA No.205/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Suresh Kumar Sahoo, Patitapababa Patana, Nimarapa, Dist:Puri Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Puri. PAN/GIR No.ENHPS 1474 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Date of Hearing : 22/0 Date of Pronouncement : 22/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld 2, Mumbai dated 29.2.2024 Bhubaneswar-2/101137/2019-20 for the assessment year B.K.Mahapatra, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without properly considering the documents and legal Page1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Ward, Respondent) B.K.Mahapatra, CA ld Sr DR 07/2024 /07/2024 inst the order of the ld 29.2.2024 in Appeal for the assessment year 2017- the assessee. Shri represented on behalf of the revenue. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without properly considering the documents and legal ITA No.205/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 3 submissions filed before him. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act as the details in support of the claim were not furnished. It was the submission that the matter be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case and the assessee would be in a position to file all the required documents to substantiate its claim. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of ld CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order without appreciating the facts on record. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that since the assessee has not appeared and furnished any documents in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s.144 of the Act. Now, ld AR undertakes that if the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, the assessee would be in a position to file all the documentary evidence in support of two issues i.e. addition made on account SBN and estimation of profit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, both the issues are restored back to the file of the Assessing officer for fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in set aside proceedings and furnish all the required documents in support of the claim. ITA No.205/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2024. Sd/- (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26/06/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Suresh Kumar Sahoo, Patitapababa Patana, Nimarapa, Dist:Puri 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward, Puri 3. The Addl/JCIT(A)- 2, Mumbai 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//