DOHARIA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

The ld. AR submits that the assessee appointed Shri Dipak Agarwal as an authorized representative to represent its case before the CIT-A. The assessee was under belief that the AR would make proper compliance in the first appellate proceedings. The assessee came to know that the AR did not make compliance and as such the CIT-A passed ex parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to assessee The ld. AR further submits that the CIT-A fixed the case for hearing on 11-11-2016. In response to this, Shri Dipak Agarwal, AR attended and has been asked to submit the balance sheet and P & L account on 18-11-2016. Due to non appearance of AR, the CIT-A dismissed the appeal of assessee by ex parte and prayed an opportunity be given to assessee to prosecute its case before the CIT-A and to remand the matter to the file of the CIT-A for his fresh adjudication and to prosecute its case before the CIT-A.

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the AO & CIT- A. He vehemently opposed to the above submissions of the ld.AR in remanding the matter to the file of CIT-A and referred to the order of the CIT-A and argued that the CIT-A fixed the appeal of the assessee for hearing and the AR did not comply with the notices. The CIT-A has afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing to assessee and the assessee failed to avail these opportunities by filing necessary evidence and explanation to substantiate its grounds and contention before the CIT-A. The CIT-A has rightly dismissed the appeal of assessee by ex parte. He supported the order of CIT-A.

Heard rival submissions and perused the record. It is noticed that the AO found that an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- stated to have been received by the assessee from 12 companies and the details of which are available in the A.O order at pages- 1 & 2. For non explanation, the AO treated the said amount as bogus share capital and added the same to the total income u/s. 68 of the Act. On perusal of order of the CIT-A, it is noticed that Shri Dipak Agarwal,AR attended on behalf of assessee before the CIT-A and sought adjournment to file balance sheet and P & L account. The CIT-A kept pending appeal upto 24-11-2016. As there was no representation on behalf of assessee, the CIT-A dismissed the appeal of assessee ex parte. On perusal of an affidavit dt. 19-03-2018, copy of the same is on record, as deposed on behalf of assessee by one of the directors, Shri Manoj Kumar Goyal stating the reason for non compliance appears to be beyond the control of assessee, which has been pointed out by the ld. AR of the assessee. 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 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purpose.