SRI DILIP MODAK,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-2692), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The only ground is to be decided in this appeal as to whether the CIT-A justified in passing ex parte order confirming the addition made by the AO on account of discrepancy found in the P & L and statement of accounts of the assessee and in the facts and circumstances.

The assessee is an individual conducting his business in the name and style M/s. Uma Communication & Umashree Bastralaya and distributor of Idea Cellular and retailer ship of Sarees. The assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.3,40,860/- on 30-09- 2012. Under scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were Sri Dilip Modak 1 issued. In response to which, the assessee produced various details and documents as required by the AO under the said notices issued. During the scrutiny proceedings the AO found that the assessee has shown an amount of Rs.1,58,69,346/- towards purchase of products i.e. SIM,RCV and Vtopup from M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. The AO sought information from said M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd u/s. 133(6) of the Act, wherein the said M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd furnished purchases to an extent of Rs.1,89,13,912/-. According to AO, the assessee could not explain the discrepancy of Rs.30,44,566/- [Rs.1,89,13,912 – Rs.1,58,69,346]. The AO also found that the assessee has paid commission of Rs.34,83,329/- wherein some payments were made without deducting TDS. Accordingly, an aggregate amount of Rs.69,660/- out of Rs.34,83,329/- was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the AO and added the both to the total income of the assessee and determined the total income of assessee at Rs.34,55,080/-.

Against such assessment order, the assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). According to CIT-A, inspite of receipt of notice issued u/s. 250 of the Act, the assessee could not prosecute his case before him and accordingly, he confirmed the impugned addition as made by the AO.

Before us the ld.AR of the assessee contends that the CIT-A passed an ex parte order and further submitted that the assessee sought adjournment before the CIT-A by filing petitions from time to time.

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

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT-A initially fixed the date of hearing on 17-09- 2015, but none appeared representing the assessee before him. From the impugned order of the CIT-A, it is observed that notice u/s. 250 of the Act intimating the date of hearing on 06-10-2015 was received by the assessee and assessee sought adjournment before him. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for some occasions the assessee remained absent and on some occasions assessee sought adjournments by filing petitions. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice and taking into consideration the submissions of the Ld.AR of assessee that the assessee is intending to file the reconciliation statement before the CIT-A in respect of discrepancy as found by the AO under scrutiny assessment, we deem it fit and proper to remand the case to the file of the CIT-A for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall be at liberty to file/produce evidences, if any to substantiate her claim and shall co-operate with the CIT-A in the appellate proceeding without seeking any further adjournment. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.