JAMUNA TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, LUCKNOW

The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of investment and trading in shares. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 15.05.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 173/-. Although the said return was initially processed by the A.O. under section 143(1), the assessment was subsequently reopened by him and in the assessment completed under section 147/143(3), an addition of Rs. 4720/- was made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of preliminary expenses. The record of the said assessment subsequently came to be examined by the Ld. CIT and on such examination, he found certain errors in the order of Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jamuna Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. the A.O. passed under section 147/143(3) which were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He accordingly set aside the said order with the direction to the A.O. to pass a fresh assessment order on certain issues vide his order passed under section 263. In compliance with the direction given by the Ld. CIT, the A.O. completed a fresh assessment vide an order dated 29.03.2014 under section 143(3)/263 of the Act wherein he made an addition of Rs. 2,82,15,000/- to the total income of the assessee on account of the share application money by treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68.

Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3)/263, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory 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(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellant order dated 16.03.2016 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. In ground no 1, the assessee has raised preliminary issue challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no proper opportunity of hearing having been given to the assessee, there was a violation of principles of natural justice by the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. In this