Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ)]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ)] Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mayank Chowdhary ............................................................................................................Appellant 6/1, Chinar Park, Kolkata – 700 057. [PAN: ASGPC 4005 M] Vs ITO, Ward-49(4) Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Respondent Maniktala Civic Centre, Uttarapan Complex, Kolkata – 700 054. Appearances by: Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Jayant Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : September 17, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : September 17, 2019 ORDER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 15, Kolkata dated 11.01.2019 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 11.01.2019. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 30.03.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 18,69,210/- after making an addition of Rs. 13,10,000/- u/s 68 by treating the unsecured loans received by the assessee from Sailja Agarwal and N.K. Agarwal as unexplained cash credit.
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mayank Chowdhary 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(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 11.01.2019 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), 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. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has made an attempt to explain the non- compliance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), I find the explanation offered by him to be not satisfactory. At the same time, it is also observed that the Ld. CIT(A), as per the provisions of sub- section (6) of section 250 was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating therein 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. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) 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 proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard subject to a payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the assessee to the department. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mayank Chowdhary 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17th September, 2019.