M/S. PRUDENTIAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of Share Broking and Consultancy. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.10.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.7,88,26,077/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 07.03.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.23,79,35,377/- after Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/s. Prudential Management Advisors Pvt. Limited disallowing the assessee’s claim for loss on sale of investment amounting to Rs.6,34,50,000/- and adding the entire amount of Sundry Creditors/Sundry Advances aggregating to Rs.25,33,00,386/- under sections 68 and 41 of the Act.

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 vide his appellate order dated 27.03.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee from the relevant portion of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), applications were duly filed by the assessee seeking adjournment of the hearings fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 12.03.2018 and 19.03.2018. He has contended that the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, gave a very short adjournment and fixed the hearing of appeal on 26.03.2018, which could not be attended as the Authorized Representative of the assessee was busy in March ending work. He has also submitted that even the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings had not given proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain its claim for loss on sale of investment amounting to Rs.6,34,50,000/- and the entire amount of sundry creditors/sundry advances amounting to Rs.25,33,00,386/- was also added by him to the total income of the assessee overlooking the fact that most of the said sundry creditors/sundry advances were pertaining to the earlier years and the said liability had not ceased to exist. He has urged that the matter may, therefore, be sent back to the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/s. Prudential Management Advisors Pvt. Limited giving such opportunity to the assessee. Since the ld. D.R. has also not raised any objection in sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer, we set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer 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 February 08, 2019.