Mayank Chowdhary v. ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata
[Citation -2019-LL-0917-82]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0917-82 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Mayank Chowdhary |
| Respondent Name | ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata |
| Court | ITAT-Kolkata |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 17/09/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2015-16 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | ex-parte order • unsecured loan • unexplained cash credit • non-compliance of notice • satisfactory explanation • restoration of appeal |
| Bot Summary: | Date of concluding the hearing : September 17, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : September 17, 2019 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) 15, Kolkata dated 11.01.2019 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 30.03.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 18,69,210/- after making an addition of Rs. 13,10,000/- u/s 68 by treating the unsecured loans received by the assessee from Sailja Agarwal and N.K. Agarwal as unexplained cash credit. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was 2 I.T.A. No. 569/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mayank Chowdhary no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 11.01.2019 passed ex-parte. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has made an attempt to explain the non- compliance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), I find the explanation offered by him to be not satisfactory. At the same time, it is also observed that the Ld. CIT(A), as per the provisions of sub- section of section 250 was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating therein the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. I set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard subject to a payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the assessee to the department. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. |