DILIP MONDAL,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 16.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.5,09,020/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.12.2010, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.20,37,013/- after making the addition of Rs.8,71,141/- on account of undisclosed expenses and Rs.6,56,852/- on account of undisclosed cash. ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 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). When the said appeal was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee initially filed an application seeking adjournment on the ground that the appeal filed in the case of Supreme Educational Development and Charitable Organization having a direct bearing on its case was pending at the relevant time. Accordingly, adjournment was granted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the appeal of the assessee was thereafter fixed by him again for hearing from time to time. There was, however, no compliance on the part of the assessee and since none appeared on the subsequent dates of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment was filed, the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to confirm both the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 19.04.2016 passed ex-parte, which is impugned by the assessee in the present appeal filed 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, an application was filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) requesting that his appeal be kept pending till the appeal filed in the case of Supreme Educational Development and Charitable Organization was disposed of as the outcome of the said appeal was having a direct bearing on the appeal of the assessee. As further submitted by him, the appeal in the case of Supreme Educational Development and Charitable Organization was finally disposed of by the ld. CIT(Appeals) only on 30.05.2016 and the assessee, therefore, did not comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal for hearing from time to time, as the request made by him keep the said appeal pending was already on record. Keeping in view these submissions made by the ld. counsel for the assessee, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non- compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 3 CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time and it is a fit case where the assessee deserves to be given one more opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(Appeals). I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to enable him to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within a reasonable period of six months.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 03, 2017.