MEENA DEVI JAISWAL,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-47(2), KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading of iron materials with scraps under the name and style of proprietary concern M/s. D.J. Enterprises. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by her on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.5,34,990/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 28.12.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.14,92,235/- after making additions, inter alia, on account of difference in sundry creditors Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Meena Devi Jaiswal amounting to Rs.9,08,711/-, undisclosed interest income amounting to Rs.33,542/- and disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VIA amounting to Rs.20,147/-.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 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 for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 14.03.2019 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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that none of the notices stated to be issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal of the assessee on three different occasions was received by the assessee and such non-receipt of notices resulted into non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Keeping in view this submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, I am satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee when her appeal was called for hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). As further submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the difference in the sundry creditors’ accounts as allegedly pointed out by the Assessing Officer is duly reconciled by the assessee. He has contended that this reconciliation requires verification by the Assessing Officer and urged that the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Officer for such verification. Since the ld. D.R. has also not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer for the proper verification, I set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and restore to the file of the Assessing Officer Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Meena Devi Jaiswal for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 18, 2019.