KOIKKARA PAPPU ROY,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALUVA

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of these appeals ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned DR.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a contractor and filed his return of income on 28.01.2014 and 105, 107/Coch/2024. Sri.Koikkara Pappu Roy. the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.5,12,500 u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs.12,54,462 u/s.14A of the Act and Rs.21,39,079 on the interest claimed on the borrowed funds. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and contended that the assessment made by AO is not correct. Unfortunately the assessee was not appearing before the ld.CIT(A) on the hearing dates intimated and therefore the CIT(A) decided the appeals ex parte by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee.

The ld.DR argued that the assessee had not produced any documents in support of their contention and therefore the appeals need to be dismissed.

We heard the arguments of the ld.DR and perused the assessment order, ld.CIT(A)’s order and the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal. We found that the assessee had some explanations as against the various disallowance made by the authorities below. But unfortunately the assessee was not able to appear before the ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee without adjudicating the issue in details. The various grounds raised by the assessee shows that they are having some documents to show that the levy is not correct. We therefore inclined to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) in order to decide afresh the appeals on merits after hearing the assessee in person. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard in the fresh proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.