M/S. DUNLOP INVESTMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

It was submitted by the Ld.AR for the assessee that the AO made the additions u/Sec’s. 68 and 14A of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,253/- against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), wherein he confirmed the additions for non appearance of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submits that the notice dated 25-02-2016 as mentioned by the CIT-A in his order M/s. Dunlop Investments Ltd 1 was not received by the assessee in time and to that effect an affidavit has been filed by the assessee before us.

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

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed from the impugned order that the CIT-A has given many opportunities to the assessee. The assessee could not appear before him to prosecute its case, but, however, it is noticed from the impugned order of the CIT-A that in all the dates of hearing the ld.A/R and staff of the assessee company appeared before him for seeking adjournment. We find that the assessee sought adjournments on different dates before the CIT(A), taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the Ld.AR as stated in the affidavit and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the case to the file of the CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per law. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite evidences, if any, to substantiate its claim. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in further appellate proceedings without seeking any further adjournment.