M/S. SURESHAM HOLDINGS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 13.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.74,039/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 15.12.2008, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,32,804/- after making additions, inter alia, on account of disallowance of foreign travel expenses. ./2016 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 2 of 3

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 full 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(Appeals) dismissed the same for non- prosecution vide his appellate order passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in 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 appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was dismissed by the latter by his appellate order passed ex-parte without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Moreover, the ld. CIT(Appeals) as per the provision of sub- section (6) of section 250 was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order passed in writing stating therein the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) shows that the same does not meet these mandatory requirements. 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 after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 27, 2017.