SUTEJ BAHETY,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(2), KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 02.08.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,97,150/-. The said return was originally processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) on 08.12.2010. Subsequently the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer and in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 27.12.2017, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.6,97,450/- after making the addition of Rs.4,99,650/- on account of unexplained commodity profit. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sutlej Bathety

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/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 on two occasions, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 31.08.2018 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. As submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on two dates, i.e. 17.08.2018 and 30.08.2018. He has submitted that the hearing fixed on 17.08.2018 could not take place due to death of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, Ex-Prime Minister of India. He has submitted that on the next date of hearing fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 30.08.2018, the assessee sought adjournment in writing but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not grant the same and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. Keeping in view these submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, I find that proper and sufficient opportunity has not been given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee of being heard before disposing of the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte and there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. Even the ld. D.R. has not been able to dispute this position, which is clearly evident from record. I, therefore, 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 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 April 02, 2019.