, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM ./ ITA NO. 247 / CTK /20 1 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 20 1 0 ) M/S OM ASSOCIATES, LA NE - 4, POKHARIPUT, BHUBANESWAR - 751020 VS. ITO, WARD - 2(2), BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AAFO 8711 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI NIRANJAN PANDA , AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 / 1 2 /201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 / 1 2 /201 7 / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S.SAINI , A M : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1 , BHUB ANESWAR , DATED 23.3.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 . 2. IN THIS APPEAL, T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C.I.T APPEAL - 1, BHUBANESWAR DATED 23.03.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. ITA - 0396/15 - 16 CONFIRM ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.07.2014 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BHUBANESWAR HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LEARNED `A.0' IS NOT JUST AND LEGAL ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.42,61,786/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITU RE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 FOR RS. 37,67,036/ - AND RS. 7,94,750/ - FOR VAN HIRE CHARGES AND OFFICE RENT RESPECTIVELY ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS RAISED & DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT / APPEAL PROCEEDINGS & WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY AND WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY VALID & COGENT REASONS CONFIRMED THE DEMAND VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2014 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BHUBNESWAR. ITA NO. 24 7 /CTK/201 6 2 4. FOR THAT OTHER GROUNDS IF ANY WOULD BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT HE HAD FIXED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 17.02.2016 & 4.3.2016 AND FINALLY ON 13.03.2016 AND NONE OF THE DATE THE ASSESSEE PUT IN AN APPEARANCE BEFORE HIM OR SUBMITTED ANY WRITTEN ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTA NTIAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FIX THE DATE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE CIT(A) IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY AND TO FILE ALL EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS ON WHICH IT WISHES TO RELY UPON AS AND WHEN CALLED UPON TO DO SO BY THE CIT(A). FURTHER, THE CIT(A) SHA LL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS ANY ORDER AS HE MAY DEEM FIT IN THE MATTER, IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COOPERATE WITH HIM IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY BY FILING RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY HIM. WITH THIS DIRECTION, THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 24 7 /CTK/201 6 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 /12/2017. SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) SD/ - (N. S. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 28 / 1 2 /201 7 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//