MAHENDRA KUMAR SANWALKA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,49,230/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the AO under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The AO, therefore, was left with no option but to complete the assessment in the case of the assessee ex-parte to the best of his judgement. In the assessment so completed under section 144 vide an order dated 18.09.2006, an addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 12,75,000/- were made by the AO to the total income of the assessee on account of gifts and loans received during the year under Assessment Year: 2004-05 Mahendra Kumar Sanwalka consideration respectively by treating the same as unexplained cash credits. He also made a further addition of Rs. 2,43,320/- under section 69B of the Act on account of shortfall in the investment disclosed by the assessee in flat. Accordingly the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 19,67,550/- in the assessment completed under section 144 vide an order dated 18.09.2006.

Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 144, 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), the latter dismissed the same vide his appellate order dated 12.12.2017 passed ex-parte for non-prosecution. 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) passed ex-parte without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a change in the address of the assessee and since all the notices of hearings were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) to the old address of the assessee, the same could not be received by the assessee which resulted in his non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). Since this submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee affirming the relevant

Assessment Year: 2004-05 Mahendra Kumar Sanwalka facts or both, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) when his appeal was fixed for hearing from time to time. I, 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 in accordance with law after giving the assessee 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.