AVIGHNA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring a loss of Rs.39,425/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee-company had received share capital and share premium amounts aggregating to Rs.1,23,00,000/- and since the said amounts representing cash credits could not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee in terms of section 68 inspite of giving sufficient opportunity during the course of Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 2 of 3 assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added the same to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 144 vide an order dated 13.03.2015.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 on account of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credits. There was, however, no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the said appeal for hearing on 05.01.2017 and 23.01.2017. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 03.02.2017 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), 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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that both the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 05.12.2016 and 09.01.2017 fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing on 05.01.2017 and 23.01.2017 were never received by the assessee and this position is clearly evident from the relevant portion of the impugned order, where the ld. CIT(Appeals) himself has stated that the said notices could not be served upon the assessee due to insufficient address. As submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard, the notices of today’s hearing fixed before the Tribunal was also sent to the same address as was furnished before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but the same has been duly received by the assessee well in time. Keeping in view all these facts of the case, we are of the view 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 by him and even the ld. D.R. has not raised any contention to dispute this position. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 3 of 3 matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 28, 2018.