ZEALANT TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an investment Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.11.2012 declaring total income at NIL. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 23.03.2015, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,66,18,550/- after making addition inter alia of Rs.1,66,00,000/- on account of share capital and Zealant Tie Up Pvt. Limited share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), a letter was filed by the assessee seeking withdrawal of its appeal. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not accept the request of the assessee on the ground that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act by which the assessee could seek withdrawal of his appeal. He then proceeded to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit vide his appellate order dated 13.05.2016 passed ex-parte whereby he upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 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 rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, when the request of the assessee for withdrawal of his appeal was not found acceptable by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the appeal of the assessee was to be disposed of by him on merit, he should have given an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, shows that no such opportunity of being heard was given by him to the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld by him by passing a very cryptic order without stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as required by the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh by passing a speaking order as required by section 250(6) 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 December 20, 2018.