M/S PRITI TRADERS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is also an ex parte order. The ld. Counsel has submitted that both the lower authorities have not given proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case and hence, the principles of natural justice have been violated.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Priti Traders Pvt. Ltd It has been submitted by way of a written submission that none of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings have ever been served upon the assessee as the office of the assessee most of the times remained closed as there was a dispute going on between both the directors holding the office, resulting into ex parte order of the Assessing Officer. It has been further submitted that the ld. CIT(A), in fact, failed to give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case before him. That the ld. CIT(A) issued notices of hearing on 22.03.2018 & 05.04.2018 through email as written in the impugned order of the CIT(A), which were near to the closure of accounting year and the said notices escaped attention of the assessee. That even the time gap between both the notices was very less. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order on 02.05.2018 dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and the assessee may be given an opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities and has submitted that the assessee has failed to appear before the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In this case, the assessee has duly demonstrated the reasons and compulsions for which the assessee was unable to represent its case before the lower authorities. In view of this, the principles of natural justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh on merits.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.