BIKASH PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 51(3) , KOLKATA

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 869 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal filed before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of the said delay on the following grounds:- “

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of Electronics Goods and Gold. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him declaring total income of Rs.8,83,000/-. As per the information received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had purchased a shop at 58/48, B.T. Road, Ward No. 7, Khardah, 24-Parganas (North) at a consideration of Rs.29,97,600/- on 08.06.2010 in cash. Since this investment made by the assessee was not reflected in the Balance-sheet filed by the assessee with his return of income, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer and a notice under section 148 was issued by him on 02.01.2014 after recording the reasons. Although there was no immediate response from the assessee’s side to the said notice, a letter was finally filed by the assessee on 03.12.2014 requesting that the return filed originally under section 139(1) may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148. Thereafter the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) of the Act vide an order Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Bikash Paul dated 26.12.2014 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,85,590/- after making an addition of Rs.25,02,508/- to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment allegedly made by the assessee and the unexplained expenditure incurred on Stamp Duty.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3), 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 vide his appellate order dated 11.01.2017 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time due to the same reasons as advanced by the assessee while explaining the delay on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Since the said reasons are duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee, I am of the view that there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee when his appeal was called for hearings before the ld. CIT(Appeals). I, therefore, 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 after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and shall extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(Appeals) 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 January 08, 2020.