Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Per Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi :- These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-III, Kolkata dated 14.12.2012 passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act for assessment years 2004-2005 and 2007- 2008 to 2009-2010 respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual conducting business under the name and style of M/s. Garg Global and dealing in purchase and sale of agro products.
2.1 A search and seizure was conducted on 23.07.2009 at assessee’s residence and other business premises where the assessee and his family members are involved directly and indirectly. A notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and to which response the assessee
I.T.A.Nos.788 to 791/KOL./2013 Assessment years: 2004-2005 & 2007-08 to 2009-10 Page 2 of 3 filed his return of income and declared Rs.5,50,000/- as additional income as undisclosed as compared to the income declared under normal procedure.
2.2 Again, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and during such verification, the AO found that the assessee has been maintaining six bank accounts, wherein, the AO accounted Rs.41,19,32,278/- as undisclosed turnover of the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. For the assessment year 2004- 05 is under consideration now in this appeal, the AO computed Rs.23,08,974/- as income of the assessee.
Aggrieved above, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A). Though it was fixed for hearing, the assessee could not represent before the CIT(A) either in person or through an authorised representative. Having no alternative, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee considering the material available on record.
Before us, the ld. A/R submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte order. The assessee did not get a fair opportunity to defend his case before the first appellate authority which is neither wilful nor intentional. The ld. A/R undertook that in case of remanding the case to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, he would look into the matter that the assessee shall represent his case without fail. The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has afforded as many as four adjournments, but, the assessee failed to avail the opportunity to prosecute his case and relied on orders of CIT(A) and the AO.
Heard both representatives and perused the material on record. It is observed from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee remained
I.T.A.Nos.788 to 791/KOL./2013 Assessment years: 2004-2005 & 2007-08 to 2009-10 Page 3 of 3 absent for four occasions, but, however, he could move applications for adjournments, but in spite of that the adjournment applications considered liberally by the CIT(A), the assessee could not take steps to prosecute his case. Taking into consideration the undertaking offered by the ld. A/R and in order to meet principles of natural justice that one should not be condemned unheard, we are of the view that these appeals should be sent back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh consideration subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.2,000/- in favour of Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and on such payment, the ld. CIT(A) shall proceed with the case by affording opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on March 23rd, 2016.