MANPASAND CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. D.C.I.T CIR 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1.0 For that under the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A), Durgapur is unjustified in dismissing the appeal without having jurisdiction over the appellant more particularly when there was already an incumbent in the office of jurisdictional CIT(A), Asansol and as also without going into the grounds of appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Portland slag cement. The assessee has filed its return of income on 29-09-2008 showing total loss of Rs.11,63,466/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and issued notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1). In response to which, the ld.AR of the assessee appeared and filed details before the AO. During the assessment proceedings, the AO added Rs.18,77,100/- as received by the assessee towards subsidy on various categories and AO treated the same as revenue expenditure. Further, the AO found differences in opening and closing balance and added the said amount of Rs.45,56,174/- treating as bogus transactions. The AO also added Rs. 36,486/- being found as difference in stock submitted to the bank and stock register as maintained by the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-compliance of 2 M/s. Manpasand Cement Pvt.Ltd notices issued intimating for appearance and hearing of first appeal by observing as under:- “2. Notice u/s. 250 was issued and in response the appellant filed adjournment petition dated 17-01-2012 seeking adjournment of the hearing fixed on 25.01.2012. Subsequently, the case was refixed for hearing on 13.12.2012, 29.01.2013 & 12.02.2013 respectively. But these dates were also not complied with and in every occasion the appellant sought for adjournment on the plea that his A/R was out of station. It appears that the appellant’s A/R is always preoccupied on the date fixed for hearing and this state of affairs is seen to be going on for more than a year. The appellant has been given several opportunities to represent his case but has practically refused, by his non-compliance, to avail them. Under the circumstances, I do not see any point in adjourning the appeal any further. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the ld. CIT-(A) had fixed the date of hearing on 17-01-2012, wherein the assessee filed an adjournment petition and case was adjourned to 25-01-2012. The assessee sought adjournment from time to time as and when the case of the assessee was fixed. The reason given for non appearance was that its AR out of station. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has afforded many opportunities to the assessee to prosecute its case. However, in the interest of natural justice and for proper adjudication, we deem it fit, just and proper to remand the case to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to decide the case afresh in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and produce necessary evidences in support of its claim and shall not seek any further adjournment. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.