SALES EMPORIUM (ULG),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The only issue is to be decided in this appeal as to whether the CIT-A is justified in passing the ex-parte order without considering the adjournment petitions filed before him and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and dealing in the business of trading in electronic goods. The assessee filed its return through on line on 29-9-2009 declaring a total income of Rs.7,72,900/-. Under scrutiny, notice u/s. 143(2) and thereafter, u/s. 142(1) of the Act M/s. Sales Emporium (ULG) 1 were issued to assessee. In response to which, the assessee produced vouchers, books of account and other particulars before the AO. Accordingly, the AO determined the total income of assessee at Rs.29,84,507/- by making various additions and to that effect an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28-11-2011.

The same was challenged before the CIT-A. The CIT-A dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground that neither the assessee nor its AR complied with the said notices as stated in the first appellate proceedings.

Before us the ld.AR of the assessee submits that the CIT-A without considering the adjournment applications as filed by the assessee before the CIT-A and as placed on record before us dated 28-12-2015, 08-04- 2015, 13-02-2015 and 17-01-2015 passed an ex parte order and also argued that that these adjournment applications were filed by the assessee requesting the CIT-A to adjourn the appeal until disposal of the appeal filed for the AY 2008-09 as it stands heard by CIT-A then and reserved for passing the order till now. He further submits that the issues involved in the appeal filed for the AY 2008-09 are similar and identical to the issues of the present appeal, thereby with a view to rebut the adverse inference that may arise out of the said appeal for the AY 2008-09 and submitted that no order of the CIT-A was passed in respect of said appeal till now. Thus, he urged to remand the issue(s) to the CIT-A for fresh consideration.

On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld.AR of the assessee placed copies of adjournment applications as stated above, wherein it is noticed as rightly pointed out by the ld.AR of the assessee that the assessee requested the CIT-A to adjourn the appeal until disposal of the appeal for the AY 2008- M/s. Sales Emporium (ULG) 2 09 which was heard and reserved for passing the order. We also find that the CIT-A passed an ex parte order without considering the said adjournment applications as filed before him by the assessee, which were also placed before us. In such circumstances in the interest of justice and taking into considerations the submissions as submitted by the Ld.AR before us , we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue(s) to the file of CIT-A for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall be at liberty to file/produce evidences, if any to substantiate its claim and shall co- operate with the CIT-A in further appellate proceeding. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.