M/S. FANTABULOUS DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-14(3), KOLKARTA, 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.6,040/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required by the Assessing Officer to explain the share capital and share premium amounts aggregating to Rs.2,25,00,000/- in terms of section 68. The assessee, however, failed to comply with the said requirement to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the share capital and share premium amounts aggregating to Rs.2,25,00,000/- as unexplained

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), 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 the ld. CIT(Appeals) 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 23.02.2017 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 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 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. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted 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.

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. Sd/- Sd/- (A.T. Varkey) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 29th day of May, 2018