M/S. SAHAL BUSINESS PRIVATE LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 15, Kolkata dated 03.10.2016 for AY 2011-12.

This appeal of assessee is time barred by 374 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. After considering the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal we find reasonable cause for condoning the delay, so, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order without properly hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice. For buttressing this grievance, the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate drew our attention to page 3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) notes that “In response to notice for hearing dated 14.06.2016, the assessee filed written submission. Nobody attended on the appointed date of hearing. Another notice for hearing was issued, fixing hearing on 23.09.2016. However, no body attended on Sahal Business Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2011-12 that date. Hence, it is presumed that assessee does not have anything further to say in support of its grounds of appeal and the written submission filed on 30.06.2016 are duly considered while deciding this appeal.” However, according to Ld. AR, the assessee taking note that on 01.07.2016 the appeal was posted for hearing filed the written submission well in advance by letter dated 29.06.2016. Thereafter, when the appeal was listed on 01.07.2016 when the Ld. AR was present at the office of the Ld. CIT(A), the file pertaining to assessee’s case could not be traced out since Shri Arun Kumar Singh was holding joint charge of the office of Ld. CIT(A)-15. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) assured the Ld. AR of the assessee that he will go through the written submission and if there is any clarification required in deciding the appeal then he will list the case again for hearing and thereafter, would pass the order. However, according to Ld. AR no such notice assessee received. However, from the impugned decision it could be seen that the Ld. CIT(A) could not understand the factual as well as the legal issue pertaining to the ground nos. 2 and 3 raised before him. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee is a necessity for adjudicating the issues raised in the appeal and, therefore, the assessee should be given one more opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Per contra, the Ld. DR does not have any objection if the assessee’s case is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeal afresh.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the main grievance of the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal without hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case after going through the written submission filed by the assessee. However, according to Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the nuances of the issue raised before him which resulted in the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the AO’s action by dismissing the ground nos. 2 and 3 raised before him. We note that though the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order after going through the written submission. In the facts discussed above by Ld. AR, during the hearing on 01.07.2016, since the file of assessee’s appeal could not be traced out no effective hearing happened before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeal back to the file of the Sahal Business Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2011-12 Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of Appeal in accordance to law after hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee. Thus the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.