M/S D. BIMALA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of garments. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 04.10.2008 declaring total income of Rs.13,95,230/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not included the proportionate amount of expenditure incurred on freight and carriage in the value of closing stock. By relying ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 3 on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- British Paints Limited [188 ITR 44], he increased the valuation of closing stock as shown by the assessee by Rs.19,24,020/- being proportionate freight and carriage expenses as allegedly attributed to the closing stock and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 24.11.2010.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) disputing the addition of Rs.19,24,020/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged under-valuation of closing stock and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the same by his appellate order dated 01.06.2013 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. The ld. counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before the Tribunal has filed the relevant details of freight and carriage expenses along with supporting bills and vouchers to support and substantiate the assessee’s case that the freight and carriage expenditure claimed by the assessee were not at all attributable to the closing stock. He has also filed an application seeking admission of the said documentary evidence filed for the first time before the Tribunal as additional evidence. In the said application, he has given reasons for non- filing of the said documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and has also given reasons for the non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal of the assesese for hearing from time to time during the course of appellate proceedings. Keeping in view the said reasons given by the assessee, I am satisfied that there was a ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 3 sufficient cause for the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appals) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time. I am also satisfied that the assessee was not given proper and sufficient opportunity by the Assessing Officer to file the said documents which are now filed by the assessee as additional evidence before the Tribunal, during the course of assessment proceedings. Even the ld. D.R. has not been able to dispute this position, which is clearly evident from the record. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for making the assessment afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and after verifying the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Tribunal.