SHRI JOYDEEP ROY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 07.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,65,190/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. There was, however, Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shri Joydeep Roy no compliance on the part of the assessee to the said notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 143(2) of the Act as well as the subsequent notices issued by him under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no option but to complete the assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgment on the basis of material available on record. In the assessment so completed under section 144 of the Act vide an order dated 15.12.2018, he made the following additions to the total income of the assessee:- (i) Trading addition by Rs.7,47,470/- applying a higher Net profit rate (ii) Agricultural income Rs.2,75,000/- (iii) Gold Loan Rs.5,10,000/- (iv) Interest income Rs. 89,172/- (v) Disallowance of Rs.1,54,000/- deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A (vi) Disallowance of excess Rs.4,94,700/- depreciation claimed on Godown

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no 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 07.01.2020 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. In the preliminary issue raised in Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution on the ground that the said order passed by the ld. Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shri Joydeep Roy CIT(Appeals) without going into the merits of the issues raised in the appeal of the assessee is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. As per the specific provision contained in sub-section (6) of section 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(Appeals) ex- parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the issues raised in the said appeal does not comply with the mandatory requirements of sub-section (6) of section 250 and even the ld. D.R. has not been able to dispute this position. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee 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 after giving the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. 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 July 07, 2020.