AAKANSHA DEALER (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

There was a delay of 290 days pointed out by the Registry. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the earlier date of hearing, has submitted that the assessee was not supplied the copy of the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 03.03.2017, whereupon, a report from the Office of the Commissioner of Income(Appeals) was called for. As per the report provided, the office of the Commissioner of Income(Appeals) vide its letter dated 22.09.2022 has written that there was no proof of service of Assessment Year: 2008-09 Aakansha Dealer Pvt. Ltd impugned order of the CIT(A) upon to the assessee was found in the case file. However, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was served upon on 07.09.2022. In view of this, the delay in filing of the appeal, if any, is hereby condoned.

Now, coming to the merits of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that no notice was received by the assessee of hearing from the CIT(A) and the impugned order of the CIT(A) was an ex parte order. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The ld. DR has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A).

Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be well-served if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.