EASTERN ORGANIC FERTILIZER PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the in the business of treatment of municipal solid waste. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 12.10.2015 declaring a total income at nil. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 17.12.2012, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs. Nil as declared by the assessee in the return of income. The records of the said assessment came to be examined by the concerned Ld. CIT(A) and on such examination, he found that the assessment made by the A.O. under section 143(3) was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He accordingly set aside the Assessment Year: 2010-11 Eastern Organic Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd. same by exercising his powers under section 263 with the direction to the A.O. to complete the assessment afresh after taking into consideration the points raised by him. In pursuance of the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), a fresh assessment was made by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 263 vide an order dated 11.03.2016 wherein he made the following two additions to the total income of the assessee: “1. Disallowance of manufacturing expenses debited to trading account Rs. 23,30,205/- 2. Property disallowance of directors remuneration Rs. 8,97,600/-“

Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 263, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) 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(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 17.01.2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the notices for hearing fixed by the Ld. CIT(A) were received by the accountant of the assessee company and since the same were not brought to the notice of the directors, necessary steps required to comply with the said notices could not be taken by the assessee company. He has contended that there was thus

Assessment Year: 2010-11 Eastern Organic Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd. a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and one more opportunity may be given to the assessee by sending the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the appeal of the assessee afresh. Although this submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee shows a casual and negligent approach of the assessee, it is noted that even the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order has not decided the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal on merit by passing a well-reasoned order as required by sub-section (6) of section 250. I, therefore, accede to the request of the learned counsel for the assessee for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee on merit subject to the payment of cost. Accordingly, I direct the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Subject to the said payment, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte is 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 one more 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 17th May, 2018.