ATIKA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company. On the basis of information received by him regarding the investment of Rs.30,00,000/- made in the shares of the assessee-company by one name-lending company M/s. Gurudhan Sales Pvt. Limited, a notice under section 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 28.03.2015. There was, however, no response on the part of the assessee to the said notice as well as the subsequent notices issued by the Assessing Officer fixing the case of the assessee for hearing from time to time. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no option but to complete the assessment ./2017 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 3 ex-parte to the best of his judgment under section 144/147/143(3) of the Act. In the assessment so completed vide an order dated 15.02.2016, addition of Rs.30,00,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee by treating the share application money received by the assesese from M/s. Gurudhan Sales Pvt. Limited as unexplained cash credit under section 68.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144/147/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since notice of the hearing of the said appeal sent through the notice server could not be served due to the Office premises of the assessee-company being found locked, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 18.11.2016 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. As submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the non-appearance on the part of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was due to non-receipt of the notice of hearing and this position clearly evident from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. It is thus clear that the impugned order has been passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and there is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) 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. As undertaken by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall comply with the notice of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and shall extend all possible ./2017 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 3 cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(Appeals) to dispose of its appeal expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on August 08, 2017.