RAJEEV PERIWAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who derives income from salary and other sources. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 20.07.2012 declaring total income of Rs.4,04,250/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2015, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer after making, inter alia, addition of Rs.18,70,590/- on account of long-term capital gain.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part Assessment Year : 2012-2013 of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearings on 02.05.2017 and 12.06.2017, the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 13.06.2017 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved for the same, 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. It is observed that an adjournment was sought by the assessee of the hearing fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) for the first time on 02.05.2017. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to 12.06.2017 and since none appeared on 12.,06.2017, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the authorized representative of the assessee Shri Lalit Kumar Periwal was ill during the relevant period and due to his prolonged illness, it had completely slipped off his mind to attend the hearing fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 12.06.2017. He has also filed an affidavit of Shri Lalit Kumar Periwal in support. Keeping in view the averments made in the said affidavit by Shri Lalit Kumar Periwal, an authorized representative of the assessee on oath, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance on behalf of the assessee on 12.06.2017 when his appeal was fixed for hearing. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. I accordingly set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th day of January, 2018. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 12th day of January, 2018 Copies to : (1)Shri Rajeev Periwal, 355/357, G.T. Road, Cosmic Enclave, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Near Betaitala Bazar, Howrah-711 103, West Bengal