KOTALIPARA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION)-II, KOLKATA

- These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Kolkata of even date i.e. 07.06.2016. Assessments were framed by ADIT(Ex)-II, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his orders dated 22.03.2013 & 31.01.2014 for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. Both the appeals heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidate order for the sake of brevity. Shri Debansu Bandyappadhyay & Sri Dipak Kr. Mukherjee, Ld. advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri S. Dasagupta, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue. -75/Kol/2016 A.Ys. 10-11 7 11-12 Kotalipara Development Society vs. ADIT-Ex-ii, Kol. Page 2 First we take up assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 10- 11.

At the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee made a statement across the Bar by stating that the appeal was fixed before Ld. CIT(A) only one time and same was concluded just in 15 minutes and thereafter no fresh opportunity was given to assessee to raise its points of contention before him. As such it was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee has passed the order. It was also submitted that voluminous paper books were produced before Ld. CIT(A) for his ready reference but Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same while adjudicating the issue on hand. In view of above contentions Ld. AR pleaded that matter should be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the appellate order is silent about number of opportunities given to assessee for representing its case. As such, Ld. DR opposed to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. On the contrary he vehemently relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that voluminous paper books were filed by assessee during the appellate stage. It was observed that the paper books supplied by the assessee were not referred by Ld. CIT(A) in his order passed u/s. 250 of the Act. Therefore relying on the statement furnished by Ld. AR for the assessee across the bar that the principle of natural justice has been violated in the instant case, we are inclined to restore the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and after hearing the point of contention to be raised by assessee. It is needless to mention that assessee should co-operate during appellate proceedings.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.