M/S CHUNNILAL MEGAMART PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, itself the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that notices issued by ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings, have not been served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. The ld. counsel also prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. DR did not have M/s Chunnilal Megamart Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). However, he wanted the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and participate in appellate proceedings. We note that the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order is an ex parte order. Therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

We note that the impugned order is an ex parte order and the assessee could not plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering the principle of natural justice and fair play, we remit the case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings diligently. Therefore, we allow this appeal for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.