Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (A
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
order
: September 03, 2018 ORDER
Per P.M. Jagtap, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 1, Kolkata dated 31.07.2018 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.
The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jute, jute blended flax goods. In the assessment originally completed u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration vide an order dated 14.12.2011, the total income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act was determined by the A.O. at a loss of Rs. 22,47,184/- while the book profit u/s 115JA was determined by him at Rs. 6,03,76,206/-. The said assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) was subsequently set
Assessment Year: 2009-10 AI Champdany Industries Ltd. aside by the concerned Ld. CIT vide his order passed u/s 263 with the direction to the A.O. to make the assessment afresh on the following two issues: “1. Discrepancy found in respect of purchase made from M/s. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 2. Assessee’s claim for fluctuation loss of conversation of dollar loans to rupee loans.”
In pursuance of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 263, a fresh assessment was made by the A.O. vide an order dated 29.03.2015 passed u/s 263/143(3) of the Act wherein he made two additions of Rs. 16,86,33,219/- and Rs. 4,76,01,396/- to the total income of the assessee on account of discrepancy in purchases and disallowance of loss on convergence of dollar loans to rupee loans respectively.
Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 263/143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the Ld. CIT(A) 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(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte after making the following observations in his impugned order: “The hearing in this case was initially fixed on 22.09.2016. On 22nd September, 2016 on behalf of the appellant a letter was submitted and requesting for adjournment and the case has been adjourned for 21.10.2016. On the said date, on behalf of the appellant a letter was submitted and requesting for adjournment and the case has been adjourned for 15.11.2016. On 15th October, 2016 on behalf of the appellant again a letter was submitted and requesting for adjournment and the case has been adjourned for 07.12.2016. On the said date further on behalf of the appellant same letter was submitted and requesting for adjournment and the case has been adjourned for 14.12.2016 but on the appointed date none attended. This case was again fixed on 26.12.2016. On the said date, on behalf of the appellant same letter was submitted and Assessment Year: 2009-10 AI Champdany Industries Ltd. seeking for adjournment without valid reason. This case was finally fixed on 24.07.2018 but on the appointed date, appellant neither attended nor any adjournment/request/submission was placed before me. Under the circumstances, it appears that the appellant does not want to pursue this appeal.”
Aggrieved by the order of the 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. As submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) initially in the year 2016 and the hearings so fixed were duly adjourned by him at the request made by the assessee. He has submitted that the appeal of the assessee, thereafter, was fixed for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) only on 24.07.2018 i.e. after a period of more than one and half years and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by him on the ground that neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought on 24.07.2018. He has submitted that the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeal for hearing on 24.07.2018 was received by the assessee only on 20.07.2018 and an application seeking adjournment of the said hearing was duly filed by the assessee in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.07.2018. He has also filed a copy of the said application duly received and acknowledged by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.07.2018 and a perusal of the same clearly shows that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte vide his impugned order without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Even the learned DR has Assessment Year: 2009-10 AI Champdany Industries Ltd. not disputed this position. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing the appeal of the assessee 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 purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd September, 2018.