Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (B
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
order
: April 04, 2018 ORDER
PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) – 18, Kolkata dated 08.11.2016 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him.
The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of power supplies, inverters and audio equipment. It is also engaged in the business of trading of audio equipment. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 22.12.2011 declaring a loss of Rs. 7,62,831/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 26.03.2014, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 78,09,120/- after making additions of Rs. 83,56,076/- and Rs. 2,15,875/- on account of disallowance of deduction under section Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sonodyne International Pvt. Ltd.
35(2AB) and disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act respectively.
Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing both the additions made by the A.O. to its total income and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issues 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 08.11.2016 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee has raised a preliminary issue in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte on the ground that the same was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the appeal of the assessee was fixed by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on 21.06.2016, 01.08.2016 and 02.08.2016. The assessee however sought adjournments on all these dates and accordingly the hearing was adjourned by the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.09.2016. On 13.09.2016, nobody however attended before the Ld. CIT(A) and presuming that the assessee was not interested in pursuing its appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the same by his impugned order passed ex-parte. The learned counsel for the Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sonodyne International Pvt. Ltd.
assessee has contended that the authorised representative of the assessee, CA, Ashok Kumar Agarwal however was ill on 13.09.2016 and he, therefore, could not attend the hearing fixed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.09.2016. He has also filed an affidavit of CA, Ashok Kumar Agarwal affirming the relevant fact on oath and keeping in view the same, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the non- appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) when its appeal was fixed for hearing on 13.09.2016. Even the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 4th April, 2018.