SUDISH YADAV,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Keeping in view the submissions made by the assessee, as above, which is duly supported by a medical certificate, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 161 days on the part of the assesse in filing this appeal. Even the ld. D/R, has not raised any objection in this regard. I, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose off this appeal of the assessee on merit.

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading of construction equipment and machinery. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30/03/2013 declaring total income of Rs.9,47,300/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dt. 31/03/2015, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.43,10,128/- after making additions of Rs.3,31,000/- & Rs.29,71,828/-, on account of repayment of loan in cash and unexplained capital contribution respectively. 5. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing on four different occasions, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the same vide his Appellate order dt. 18/11/2016 passed ex-parte.

Aggrieved, by the same, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte order. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.3.31.000/- made by the A.O. being loan repaid to one Prakash Singh by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 269T. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.29, 71,828/- made by the A.O. in respect of amount received as gifts wrongly treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

I have heard the arguments for both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex- parte. In this regard, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee was seriously ill during the relevant period and in the absence of any proper diagnosis, his medical treatment got delayed. He has contended that there was, thus, sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and since the ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order passed ex-parte has not decided the issues raised in the appeal on merits, the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) for disposing off the appeal of the assessee afresh. I find merit in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Even the ld. D/R, has not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the ld. CIT(A). As per sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A), disposing off the appeal has to be in writing stating therein the points for determination, decision thereon and the reason for the decision. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte shows that it does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act. I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing off the appeal of the assessee afresh on merits, after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 21st day of March, 2018. Sd/- [P.M. Jagtap] Accountant Member Dated :21.02.2018 {SC SPS}