ARPAN SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 23, Kolkata dated 15.02.2017 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 717/-. In the assessment completed u/s 144 vide an order dated 27.03.2015, total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 42,15,00,717/- after making an addition of Rs. 42.15 crores on account of share capital and share premium claimed to be received by the assessee by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.

Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no 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(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 15.02.2017 passed ex-parte and confirmed the addition made by the AO u/s 68. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), 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. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte without providing proper and sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri R.K. Chowdhury, Advocate has submitted that his father was seriously ill during the relevant period when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). He has contended that due to serious illness of his father, he could not represent the assessee’s case before the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte. Keeping in view this submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non- appearance on the part of the assessee when his appeal was fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18th September, 2018.