PARESH KUMAR DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 27(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 25.04.2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,76,940/-. As per the AIR information received by the AO, the assessee had made payments aggregating to Rs. 4,60,685/- through his credit card of Standard Chartered Bank during the year under consideration. The assessee therefore was called upon by the AO to explain the source of the said payments made through his credit cards. The assessee however could not explain such source to the satisfaction of the AO and accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,60,685/- was added by the AO to the total income of the assessee by treating the same as undisclosed income in the Assessment Year: 2007-08 Paresh Kumar Das assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.12.2009.

Against the order passed by the A.O. 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 the Ld. CIT(A) 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 03.05.2016 passed ex-parte for non-prosecution on the part of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I 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 in violation of the principle of natural justice, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that none of the notices stated to be issued by the Ld. CIT(a) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time was received by the assessee. As pointed out by him, this position gets fortified from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) itself wherein the Ld. CIT(A) himself has stated that the notices sent to the assessee had come back unserved each time. It is thus clear that none of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing was ever served on the assessee which resulted in the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). In my opinion, there was thus a sufficient cause for the non- appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and even the learned DR has not disputed this position clearly evident from the record. I,

Assessment Year: 2007-08 Paresh Kumar Das 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 on merit after giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd June, 2018.