SUROJIT KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 41(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of dealing in Petrol, Diesel and Lubricants. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,37,780/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 22.01.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.21,13,296/- after making the following additions:- (1) Disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.1,26,400/- Assessment Year: 2013-2014 (2) Disallowance of loading and unloading Rs.25,900/- expenses (3) Disallowance of Pump Drive Expenses Rs.16,040/- (4) Disallowance of bogus purchases Rs.46,786/- (5) Rs.14,60,390/- Undisclosed income

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) disputing the various additions made by the Assessing Officer and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In the preliminary issue raised in Grounds No. 1 & 2 of his appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the notices of hearings stated to be sent by the ld. CIT(Appeals) were never received by the assessee which resulted in his non-appearance during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals). As pointed out by him, the ld. CIT(Appeals) apparently had mentioned the name of the Post Office as ‘Betal’ instead of ‘Betai’ in the address of the assessee and the same apparently resulted in the non-serving of notices on the assessee. I find merit in this contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. It appears that the notices of hearings sent by the ld. CIT(Appeals) could not be served on the assessee due to mistake in the address of the assessee and there was thus a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals). I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of Assessment Year: 2013-2014 the assessee afresh on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd day of February, 2018. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 23rd day of February, 2018 Copies to : (1) Shri Surajit Kundu, C/o. S.L. Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-700 019 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4), Kolkata (3) CIT(Appeals)-12, Kolkata, (4) CIT- , Kolkata, (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By Order