IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year DCIT, Corporate Circle Bhubaneswar (Appellant Per Bench These are of the ld CIT(A) No.0250/2011 2009-10 & 2010 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. None represented on behalf of the 3. It may be mentioned here that the appeals have been filed as early as 2015 and though the appeals have been posted on multiple occasions IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(ss)A Nos.10 & 11/CTK/20 Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010 DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Vs. M/s. Dreams Power Real Estate and Marketing Pvt Ltd., 317 Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, Date of Hearing : 18 /10 Date of Pronouncement : 18/10 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the assessee against the of the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar both dated 30.1.2015 0250/2011-12 and Appeal No.0249/2011-12 for the assessment year 10 & 2010-11, respectively. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee. It may be mentioned here that the appeals have been filed as early as 2015 and though the appeals have been posted on multiple occasions Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CTK/2015 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dreams Power Real Estate and Marketing Pvt Ltd., 317-D, Laxmi Sagar, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AACCD 8559 J Respondent) M.K.Gautam, CIT DR 10/2022 10/2022 filed by the assessee against the separate orders 30.1.2015 in Appeal for the assessment years Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. None It may be mentioned here that the appeals have been filed as early as 2015 and though the appeals have been posted on multiple occasions IT(ss)A Nos.10 & 11/CTK/2015 Assessment Years : 2009-2010 Page2 | 4 nearly 25 times, there is no response from the assessee. The notice had been directed to be sent through Revenue and the Revenue has submitted that the notice has been sent by e-mail. It is also mentioned that the PAN is active and that the assessee has filed its last income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12 and no returns have been filed thereafter. This being the circumstance, as there is no response from the side of the assessee, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending, we proceed to dispose off the appeals. 4. It is submitted by ld CIT DR that the assessee is a company, which is doing business of Multi Level Marketing in Real Estate. It was the submission that the assessment had been completed, wherein, the AO had on the basis of seized materials quantified the income of the assessee at Rs.2,81,16,052/- for the assessment year 2009-2010 and Rs.12,36,93,009/- for the assessment year 2010-2011. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) had for the assessment year 2009-10, determined the total income at a loss of Rs.3,27,17,406/- and for the assessment year 2010- 2011 at a total income of Rs.7,46,35,356/-. It was the submission that in the course of search, the Managing Director of the assessee company had offered Rs.7 crores for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.14 crores for the assessment year 2010-2011. It was the submission that this has not been considered by the ld CIT(A). It was the further submission that the ld CIT(A) has made addition on account of renewal of IDs for both the IT(ss)A Nos.10 & 11/CTK/2015 Assessment Years : 2009-2010 Page3 | 4 assessment years and same does not come out of the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was not a speaking order. It was the submission that for the assessment year 2010- 2011, there is an addition made by the ld CIT(A) on account of unaccounted sale of land. It was the submission that the details of this was not coming out of the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the further submission that the ld CIT(A) has also not called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer in regard to this addition. It was the submission that he had no objection if the issues in the appeals are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. As mentioned earlier, the assessee has chosen to be unrepresented. We have considered the submissions of ld CIT DR. We have also perused the orders of the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO. Admittedly, the addition as made by the ld CIT(A) representing the renewal of IDs is not being discussed by the ld CIT(A) in his orders nor it finds place in the assessment order. The details of the same are not coming out of the orders of lower authorities. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing officer for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. IT(ss)A Nos.10 & 11/CTK/2015 Assessment Years : 2009-2010 Page4 | 4 6. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/10/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18/10/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: M/s. Dreams Power Real Estate and Marketing Pvt Ltd., 317-D, Laxmi Sagar, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//