NIRMAL KUMAR RAY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-26, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata dated 10.03.2016 passed ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who derives income mainly from salary. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 27.07.2010 declaring total income of Rs.63,08,810/-. Although the said return was initially accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1), assessment was subsequently reopened by him and a notice under section 148 was issued by him on 13.02.2012 after recording the reasons. In response to the said notice, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 13.07.2012 offering additional income of Rs.72,000/- being the ALV of his Salt Lake house property and Rs.27,000/- being income from Post Office Term Deposit. In 2 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 28.03.2013, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.66,63,220/- after making an addition of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of ALV of the second house property of the assessee and Rs.2,06,401/- on account of unexplained money.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) 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 three different dates, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 10.03.2016 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), 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. As regards the preliminary issue raised in this appeal relating to the lack of proper and sufficient opportunity given by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee, who has appeared personally, submits that all the three notices of hearing received from the office of the ld. CIT(Appeals) were duly handed over by him to his Authorized Representative, C.A. Vivek Jaiswal. He submits that his Authorized Representative, however, could not appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the given dates as he was out of station. He submits that he is very much interested in prosecuting his appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and should not be made to suffer because of the mistakes committed by his Authorized Representative. He pleads that one more opportunity may be given to put forth his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and undertakes to make a due compliance before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Keeping in view all the submissions made by the assessee himself, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the assessee to put forth his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the 3 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh. As informed to the assessee in the open Court, the appeal shall be fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 12th February, 2018 and the assessee shall put forth his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the said date without any further notice.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th day of December, 2017.