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: 2009-10 Prabir Kumar Saha....................................………………………….........................................Appellant Prop. Annapurna Bhandar, Dakshin Para, Chakdaha, Putiari, Kolkata – 700 093. [PAN: ATYPS 1964 Q] VS Income Tax Officer...................…………………………………………………..........................Respondent Ward – 26(1), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700 068. Appearances by: None appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : October 15, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : October 15, 2019 ORDER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 7, Kolkata dated 28.02.2019 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of grocery items. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,99,730/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 15.12.2011, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 10,91,950/-. The assessment however was reopened by him subsequently and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 28.08.2013 after recording the reasons. In reply, a letter was filed by the assessee on 18.09.2013 stating that the return originally filed by Assessment Year: 2009-10 Prabir Kumar Saha him on 30.09.2009 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. In the assessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 24,49,533/- after making the following additions: “1. Excess purchases from Tulsiram Agarwala Rs. 6,80,369/- 2. Excess purchases from Ankit India Ltd. Rs. 6,76,795/- 3. Excess purchases from Rahul Enterprise Rs. 83,760/- Rs. 1,16,659/-”
Excess claim of sundry creditors
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) 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(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution vide his appellate order dated 28.02.2019 passed ex- parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal of the assessee is therefore being disposed of ex- parte after hearing the arguments of the learned DR and perusing the relevant material available on record. It is observed from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) on four occasions and the assessee sought adjournment on most of these occasions. The Ld. CIT(A) however did not afford any more opportunity to the assessee and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex- parte for non-prosecution without going into the merit of the case. As per the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250, the Ld. CIT(A) was Assessment Year: 2009-10 Prabir Kumar Saha required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating 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 and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15th October, 2019.