SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata dated 22.01.2016 for AY 2008-09.

3. At the outset itself, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that on the strength of written submission, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal without hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee, which according to him, is a violation of natural justice and he pleads for effective hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that from a perusal of page 2 of the assessment order it is evident that the AO had issued notice u/s. 131 of the Act at the fag end of March, 2014 to the assessee to produce its directors as well as the directors of the subscribed companies and Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 to produce authenticated documents in support of the subscription made and since the directors did not turn-up before the AO, he treated the transaction as bogus and thereafter had passed the reassessment order on 30.03.2014 treating the fresh share application money of Rs.21,39,80,400/- as unaccounted cash credit in the hands of the assessee and added the same in terms of section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of AO, on the basis of written submission. The Ld. AR of assessee is aggrieved by the action of Ld. CIT(A) in not granting an opportunity to hear him, before adjudicating the appeal. We note that AO has sent notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the share applicant companies and in reply the share applicants had filed the ITR acknowledgment, final accounts, bank statements etc. along with other details to prove that the transactions are genuine. Since, according to AO, the assessee failed to produce its directors as well as the directors of the subscribed companies and to produce authenticated documents in support of the share subscription made, he treated the share application money introduced to the tune of Rs.21,39,80,400/- as unaccounted cash credit in the hands of the assessee and added the same in terms of section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) have confirmed the action of AO without hearing the Ld. AR and only on the basis of written submission. According to Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT(A) should have given a meaningful hearing to the Ld. AR of the assessee while adjudicating the appeal. According to Ld. AR, “Justice should not only be done, it must be seen it be done”. We note that since the effective hearing did not take place as contended by the Ld. AR of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play for both parties, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeal back to his file for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, Ld. CIT(A) to give opportunity to Ld. AR of assessee and pass a speaking order.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th December, 2018. Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) Sd/-(A. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28th December, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1 Appellant – Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., 1, Bonefield Lane, 3rd floor, Kolkata-700 001. 2 Respondent – ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata. 3 CIT(A)-2, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) 4 CIT , Kolkata. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) 5