SRI PRANTIK GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2, MALDA, MALDA

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and dealing in the business of selling hardware goods and hat faria business. The assessee filed his return of income on 31-03-09 for the assessment year under consideration showing total income at Rs. 1,19,980/-. Sri Prantik Ghosh 1 Under scrutiny the notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to which the assessee produced the details of bank account of Allahabad Bank and SBI Bank along with the debit vouchers. According to the AO, inspite of having given many opportunities by him the assessee could not produce the full details and remained absent before him. On such occasion, the AO completed the assessment proceedings u/s. 144 of the Act on 22-12-2010 determining the total income at Rs.21,03,154/- and made two additions of Rs.19,35,174/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A and Rs.48,000/- on account of concealed income u/s. 69A of the Act.

As aggrieved by such assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT-A. Before him the assessee filed written submission and also remained absent on the date of hearings fixed by the CIT- A. However, the CIT-A considering the submissions of the assessee, confirmed such assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 144 of the Act.

Aggrieved by such order of the CIT-A now the assessee is in appeal before us and contended that the CIT-A has erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee both on facts and in law. The CIT-A has also erred in not considering the written submissions and other material filed before him by the assessee. He has not decided the appeal on merit. He further submits that the CIT-A has also sought remand report from the AO wherein the AO did not issue any notice for remand proceedings to the assessee. Basing on such remand report, the CIT-A passed impugned order without considering the said written submissions and other material available before him.

In reply, the Ld.DR appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the CIT-A has given ample opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. Inspite of which, the assessee did not take any step to appear before him and to defend his case. He further submits that the assessee did not take any step to appear before the AO during remand proceedings. In support of his contentions, he relied on the impugned orders of the authorities below.

Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the paper book filed by the assessee before us. We find that the AO asked the assessee to produce other details other than bank statements in the assessment proceedings. For non production of the same and for non appearance before the AO, he completed the assessment proceedings u/s. 144 of the Act. We further find that during appellate proceedings before the CIT-A the assessee did not comply with the notice of hearing and remained absent before him. We also find that both the authorities have offered ample opportunity to the assessee Sri Prantik Ghosh 3 to substantiate his case by filing requisite documents/evidences in support of his contention. The main contention of the assessee is that the AO did not issue any notice in remand proceedings and the CIT-A considering the remand report passed impugned order, which is bad under law. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter on hand requires afresh adjudication by the CIT-A. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT-A on the issue(s) involved in this appeal and remand the matter to his file for fresh adjudication and to pass an order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the assessee is also directed to produce necessary evidences, if any, in support of his contentions before the CIT-A. The assessee shall co- operate in such proceedings without seeking any further adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/09/2016