DRISTI FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BILWARA vs. ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A is justified in passing ex parte order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The ld. AR submits that initially return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The said assessment was re-opened by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO determined the total income of assessee at Rs.28,360/- vide his order passed u/s. 147/143(3) dt. 29-03-2012.

The CIT, Kolkata-II held that the said assessment dt. 29-3-2012 is erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue and as such directed the AO to conduct fresh assessment vide her order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dt. 25-03-2014. In the giving effect proceedings, the AO without serving any notice on assessee added an amount of Rs.6,12,00,000/- to the total income of assessee on account of cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act by an order passed u/s.144/263/147(143(3) of the Act dt. 10-03-2015.

The above order of the AO was challenged before the CIT-A. The CIT-A issued notices for the hearings on 30-08-2016, 21-07-2016 & 04- 05-2016 and the notices were returned with the postal remarks- insufficient address. It is noticed that the CIT-A issued notices to the address mentioned in Form No. 35, 7A Bentinck Street, 4th Floor, Kolkata- 700 001 instead of B-224, Mahesh Marg, Sanjay Colony, Bilwara-311001, Rajasthan. Since there was no representation on behalf of assessee, the CIT-A passed ex parte and confirmed the said order of the AO.

The ld.AR submits that there was no representation either before the AO & CIT-A due to the said fact that notices were issued to Kolkata address, but not in Rajasthan address mentioned in Form No. 36 Column 10.

On the other hand, the ld. DR did not controvert the same.

Heard rival submissions & perused the record. It is noticed that the CIT-A issued notices to assessee on 11-08-2016, 09-05-2016 & 08-04- 2016 fixing the hearings on 30-08-2016, 21-07-2016 & 04-05-2016. But, the notices dt. 11-08-2016 & 08-04-2016 were returned unserved with an endorsement insufficient address. On the date of hearing 21-07-2016 non appeared nor any adjournment was filed. On perusal of assessment order, we find that the assistance of assessee is required to substantiate its claim and contention. In such circumstances, taking into consideration the submissions of ld.AR and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter involved in the appeal to the file of CIT- A for his fresh adjudication and to pass a fresh order as per law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The assessee is directed not to seek any adjournment and to co-operate with the CIT-A in the first appellate proceedings for speedy disposal of the case. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of assessee- A.Y 2009-10 is allowed for statistical purpose.