IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL M/s. Geetarani Mohanty, Station Road, Barbil, Keonjhar PAN/GIR No (Appellant Per Bench Both the separate orders of the ld in Appeal No.Cuttack/10434/2017 assessment year 2. Shri P.C.Sethi, Kumar, Ld CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.315 & 316 /CTK/20 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014 M/s. Geetarani Mohanty, Station Road, Barbil, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AADFG 1692 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.C.Sethi, Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT Date of Hearing : 08/0 Date of Pronouncement : 08/0 O R D E R Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed ers of the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, both in Appeal No.Cuttack/10434/2017-18 and Cuttack/10386/2016 assessment years 2012-13 & 2014-15, respectively. P.C.Sethi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CTK/2023 13 & 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Respondent) Adv Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR 07/2024 /07/2024 are directed against the both dated 21.8.2023 18 and Cuttack/10386/2016-17 for the the assessee and Shri Sanjay ITA Nos.315 & 316 /CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 Page2 | 3 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar has passed order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He submitted that although in response to notice dated 21.10.2022 issued by ld CIT(A), the assessee had made submission in regard to the jurisdiction for deciding the appeal, however, ld CIT(A) without considering the same, has passed the order after a period of 10 months from the date of notice. He prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration of the issues in this appeal. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has issued notices in the ITBA portal and the assessee has also responded to the same. However, the assessee had disputed the jurisdiction of the ld CIT(A) to decide the appeal, which was not considered and the appeal was passed by the CIT(A) after a lapse of eight months from the said date. Since the documentary evidences in support of the claim were not furnished, the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order. Now, ld AR has undertaken before us that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would be in a position to file the documentary evidences to substantiate the claim before the Assessing officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing ITA Nos.315 & 316 /CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 Page3 | 3 Officer to re-adjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 08/07/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 08/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary, ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : M/s. Geetarani Mohanty, Station Road, Barbil, Keonjhar 2. The Respondent: Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Cuttack 3. The Pr. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//