MANOJ MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 31(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

raised by the assessee are as follows :- “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order passed was in violation of principals of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed.

2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals passed the appellate order without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3. For that in the facts and circumstance the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the addition of Rs.39,73,500/- on account of 2 Manoj Mishra 69C of the IT Act 1961. The addition is not called for and hence the same be deleted.

4. For that in the facts and circumstance the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the addition of Rs.8, 13,211/- being 2% of cash purchases of Rs.4,06,60,583 /- on estimate basis. The addition is not called for and hence the same be deleted.

5. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal] Rules 1963.

3. At the outset the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the impugned order is an exparte order and the assessee could not get opportunity to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also has not passed the order on merits considering the submission submitted before the AO. Apart from this, the assessee has raised ground No.5 to produce additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Kolkata. Therefore the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the matter be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. DR had no objection if the matter is remitted back before the ld. CIT(A).

4. We note that since the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order and the assessee could not plead his case before him. We also note that the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order is an exparte order therefore we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assesee. We note that on perusal of the body of the impugned order it is apparent that it is an exparte order which has been challenged by the assesee for want of proper opportunity and for that the assessee has raised ground no.1 and 2 wherein he has stated that the CIT(A) had passed the appellate order without giving proper opportunity to the assesee. The ground 3 Manoj Mishra No.5 raised by the assessee relates to additional evidence to be produced before the Bench. Therefore we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and we restore the matter to his file to pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee and give adequate opportunity to the assesee. For statistical purposes the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

(S.S.GODARA) (DR. A. L. Saini) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member कोलकाता /Kolkata; Dated: RG, SPS

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :