TIRUPATI MARBLES,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2),, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.08.25 of the CIT(Appeals)-20, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2010–11. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessee filed 2. return of income on 30.09.2010 at a total income of Rs.2,89,213/- claiming refund for Rs.20,633/- on advance payments of Rs.1.10,000/-. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment proceedings was ultimately completed u/s. 147/143(3) on 26/03/2014. Subsequently, the PCIT-15, Kolkata as per his order dated 03/03/2016 u/s 263 of the Act found the assessment order dated 26/03/2004 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set-aside the assessment Tirupati Marbles order with directions to pass fresh assessment order after examining the evidence and documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly notices u/s. 143(2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act with detailed questionnaire were issued and in response to the notice, the AR of the assessee appeared. In this case, a survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act was carried in the business premises of the assessee on 22/03/2010 and on the basis of the survey operation, it was found that the stock of the assessee as per physical inventory found at Rs.35,93,377/-. The Assessing Officer made certain additions which includes addition of Rs.4,27,841/- on suppressed sale of Rs.38,75,373/- and Rs.96,000/- with reference to some discrepancy in the expenses account and Rs.57,021/- on account of Telephone expenses and the Assessing Officer has further made some estimated disallowances of Rs.43,235/- out of Car expenses and depreciation and finally made an addition of Rs.1,09,00,000/- in respect of unexplained investments.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed by passing an ex parte order as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee on different dates fixed by the ld. CIT(A).

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The ld. AR argued that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without considering the explanations and documentary evidences filed before the lower authorities. He also stated that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the relevant details which were submitted during the assessment proceedings. He therefore prayed for one more opportunity by restoring the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration by affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing.

After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perusing the orders of the lower authorities, it appears to us that there was no compliance before the ld. CIT(A) which has resulted into passing the ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the assessee filed explanations and evidences during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer failed to properly consider the same. Under the circumstances, in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the documentary evidences or explanations submitted by the assessee after affording opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is directed to positively cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting necessary explanations and evidences, if any, to substantiate its claim.

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