MANUSH COMMODITIES (P) LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-15(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment as well as the appellate order was framed ex-parte as the assessee could not appear before the authorities below. The assessee has filed certain additional evidences like

The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly objected to the arguments put forward by the Ld. A.R and submitted that despite several opportunities the assessee has failed to appear and finally the case of the assessee was decided ex-parte before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. D.R however left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that undisputedly both the authorities below have decided the case ex-parte. So much so the Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidences has filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules comprising bank statement, balance sheet, audited account, auditors report etc. In our opinion, no one should be condemned unheard. In our considered view the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity to present its case on merit before the AO so that the principles of natural justice are satisfied. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. In view of the above, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of AO with the direction to decide the same after taking into account contentions and evidences which the assessee may file. Simultaneously we direct the assessee to co- operate in the assessment proceedings failing which an adverse view could be taken.