M/S. SCOTCH VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-15(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,280/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon by the Assessing Officer to explain the share capital of Rs.2,64,60,000/- received during the year under consideration in terms of section 68. The assessee, however, failed to comply with this requirement inspite of sufficient opportunity afforded by the Assessing Officer in this regard. The Assessing Officer, therefore,

Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 2 of 3 was left with no option but to complete the assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgment. In the assessment so completed under section 144 vide an order dated 25.03.2015, he made an addition of Rs.2,64,60,000/- to the total income of the assessee under section 68 by treating the share capital amount received during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no 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 13.01.2017 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing fixed today in this case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that all the three notices of hearings were sent by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to a different address and not to the address given by the assessee in the relevant column of Form No. 35 and this position clearly evident from the record is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the non-compliance before the ld. CIT(Appeal) was due to the notices being sent to the wrong address and the same constituted a sufficient cause. We also take note of the fact that there was no compliance on the part of the assessee even during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and as rightly submitted by the ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer also did not get an opportunity to properly verify the claim of the assessee of having received share capital of Rs.2,64,60,000/- in terms of section 68. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 3 of 3 same afresh on merit in accordance with law 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 29, 2018.