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 Soumen Mukherjee.....................................………………………….........................................Appellant 91/92J, Kumirjala Road, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 203. [PAN: AFUPM 0122 N] Vs ITO, Ward-23(3)Hooghly...................…………………………………………………..............Respondent Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances by: Shri D.B. Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : September 09, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : September 09, 2019 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 6, Kolkata dated 17.12.2018 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 23.03.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,06,470/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 11.08.2017, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 16,51,970/- after making an addition of Rs. 11,45,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
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 no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Soumen Mukherjee 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 17.12.2018 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. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had sought adjournment of the hearing fixed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 29.10.2018 by filing an application in writing but none could appear on behalf of the assessee on the next date of hearing fixed on 07.12.2018 as the authorised representative of the assessee was out of station on that date. He has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) however did not give any more opportunity to the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his impugned order passed ex- parte which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. Moreover, as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250, the Ld. CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide 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 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Soumen Mukherjee assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 9th September, 2019.