M/S. SUHANA BRIDGE & ROOF CONSULTANTS (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

None अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2020 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 26-02-2020 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 Kolkata’s order dated 28.02.2018 passed in case No.712/CIT(A)-10/W-5(1)/12-13/2017-18/Kol. involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

Assessment Year 2012-13 M/s Suhana Bridge & Roof Consultants ( P) Ltd. Vs ITO-Wd-5(1) Kol. Page 2 2. The assessee’s twin substantive grievances raised in the instant appeal seek to reverse both the lower authorities’ action treating its share capital / premium amounting to ₹70,98,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits followed by sec. 14A r.w.s Rule-8D disallowance of ₹5,568/- to the extent of its exempt income; respectively. It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s foregoing action on both counts. Learned CIT-DR invites our attention to the CIT(A)’s order and more so in page-2 that he appears to have made numerous attempt to serve the assessee before proceeding to affirm the impugned addition. We notice in this backdrop that the instant lis involves change of lower appellate authority from the CIT(A)-2 Kolkata to CIT(A)-10, Kolkata. The assessee’s non-appearance before the latter lower appellate authority prima facie seems to be for this reason alone as possibility of communication gap in such circumstances cannot be altogether ruled out. Coupled with this, we also notice that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has not considered all the relevant evidence in support of genuineness / creditworthiness of its share investors since he has primarily gone by numerous judicial precedents only whilst affirming the impugned addition. We therefore deem it appropriate that larger interest of justice would be meet in case the CIT(A) re-considers the assessee’s lower appellate proceedings u/s 250(6) of the Act afresh as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. 3. Order pronounced in open court on 26/02/2020