DHRUV VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,50, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, GROUND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700071 vs. ITO, 8(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-700069

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 01.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.10,540/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the share capital and share premium aggregating to Rs.85,00,000/- received in the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the same as unexplained cash credit and made an addition of Rs.85,00,000/-

Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 2 of 3 to the total income of the assessee under section 68 in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 23.03.2015.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the addition of Rs.85,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 and since there was no compliance 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 06.03.2017 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, the Director of the assessee- company filed an affidavit stating on oath that the Company had not received any notice of hearing from the office of the ld. CIT(Appeals), which resulted in its non-appearance before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Keeping in view this affirmation made by the Director of the assessee-company on oath, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non- appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter 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 28, 2018.