VIJAY LAXMI RATHI,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(4), KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual. In the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 28.12.2017, the claim of the assessee for exemption on account of long- term capital gain arising from the shares of M/s. Bakra Pratisthan Limited was held to be bogus by the Assessing Officer and an addition of Rs.21,72,280/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee on this issue.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before him, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit vide his appellate order dated 04.12.2019 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing fixed in this appeal today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal of the assessee is, therefore, being disposed of after hearing the arguments of the ld. D.R. and perusing the material available on record. It is noted that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was dismissed by him ex-parte vide his impugned order after noting the non-compliance on the part of the assessee in paragraph no. 3 as under:- “3. In this case, notice of hearing u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued through ITBA module on 08.11.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 27.11.2019. The said notice has been duly served upon the appellant-firm through Speed Post Track Consignment Data. However, no compliance has been made till the date of passing of this order. In this case, neither the appellant/Ld. AR for the appellant-HUF has appeared nor filed any petition seeking adjournment for hearing of the case”.

As is evident from the aforesaid relevant portion of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals) only on one occasion and without giving any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by him ex-parte vide his impugned order. Keeping in view these facts of the case, it appears that no proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard was given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee before dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte and there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Even the ld. D.R. has not been able to dispute this position, which is clearly evident from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). I, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law by passing a well discussed and well reasoned order after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal afresh expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on June 17, 2021.