M/S ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8, KOLKATA

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 33 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, an application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the said delay is placed on record and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 33 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. The delay of 33 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is 1

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of property development and general commission agent. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 31.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs.30,34,640/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 19.03.2014, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.3,11,77,730/- after making the following additions:- Unexplained investment Rs. 15,00,000/- in purchase of land Rs.2,09,99,532/- Unexplained credit advances Remission of trading Rs. 50,13,563/- liability under section 41(1) of the Act Undisclosed receipts Rs. 6,30,000/-

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) 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 to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 30.11.2018 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 case today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is observed from the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) that even though the notices of hearing were stated to be issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee, there is nothing to show that the said notices were actually served on the assessee. Moreover, as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of section Anil Kumar Paik 250, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. It is observed that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not comply with these requirements. We, 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 dismissing the appeal of the assesese for non- prosecution 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 October 19, 2020.