M/S. STAR TRACK AGENCY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 135 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, I am satisfied

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of Managing Warehouses. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.12.2009, the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.24,94,840/- after making inter alia an addition of Rs.10,39,250/- being 50% of the unverifiable purchases. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said addition. On further appeal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 03.05.2013 restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of the assessee for the concerned purchases after giving one more opportunity to the assessee. As per the direction of the Tribunal, opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to support and substantiate its claim for the concerned purchases by furnishing the relevant details and documents. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee, however, failed to furnish the relevant details and documents and in the absence of the same, the Assessing Officer repeated the addition of Rs.10,39,250/- to the total income of the assessee on account of unverifiable purchases in the order dated 27.10.2014 passed under section 254/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 254/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) 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(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 22.08.2017 passed ex-parte.

In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex- parte without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that adjournments were sought by the assessee when its appeal was initially fixed for hearings before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He has submitted that the appeal of the assessee after granting the said adjournments was fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) for hearing on 10.08.2017. He has submitted that the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee Advocate Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta) duly appeared before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 10.08.2017 and sought adjournment. Accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 16.08.2017 and when she went to the office of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 16.08.2017, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not available in the office and she was suggested to appear again within next two dates. He contended that Advocate Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta), however, had to leave for Bankura owing to her mother’s serious illness on 17.08.2017 and by the time she could return back and visit the office of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the order was already passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 22.08.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. Since these submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are duly supported by an affidavit of Advocate Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta) affirming the relevant facts on oath, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) when its appeal was fixed for hearing. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the ld.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on August 29, 2018.