M/S. PANCHRATAN COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the outset, we note that the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and it has been passed without going into merits of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal. Though the Ld. AR has filed an adjournment application dated 05.11.2018 which is placed on the file itself, we find from the grounds of appeal raised before us i.e ground no. 2 that the assessee is aggrieved by the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without allowing the assessee proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the impugned order is an ex parte order and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the question of facts and law raised by the assessee, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to adduce evidence and make their pleadings before the Ld. CIT(A) and Panchratan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order in accordance to law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.