Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ & HZ)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata dated 04.04.2019, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 27.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,19,770/-. In the assessment completed under section 143/147 of the Act vide an order dated 18.12.2017, the total income of the assesese was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.2,94,770/- after making the addition of Rs.1,75,000/- on account of disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction on account of donation under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act.
Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Castle Residency Pvt. Limited
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143/147, 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) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer vide his appellate order dated 04.04.2019 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on four occasions. He has submitted that the assessee sought adjournment of the first hearing fixed on 01.11.2018, while none could appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the next two hearings fixed on 04.12.2018 and 23.01.2019 as notices of the said hearings were never received by the assessee. He has submitted that the appeal of the assessee thereafter was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 04.04.2019 and although the assessee sought adjournment on the said date by making the request through its employee Shri Tulsi Saha, the ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected the said request and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. He has contended that proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard thus was not given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte and this position clearly evident from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. I, therefore, find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(Appeals) while passing the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte has not followed the Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Castle Residency Pvt. Limited principle of natural justice. I accordingly 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 after giving proper and sufficient 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 expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on October 23, 2019.