I.T.A. NO . 406 / KOL ./201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 406 / KOL / 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 20 0 9 M/S. DUM DUM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., . .. ..... .... . ............ .. .APP ELL ANT 258, M.C. GARDEN ROAD, BLOCK - B, 3 RD FLOOR, MADHUBANI APARTMENT, KOLKATA - 700 0 30 [PAN : A ABC D 1720 G ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER , ........................... ................... ... . RESPONDENT WARD - 12 ( 2 ), KOLKATA , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 7 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 11B, P - 7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA - 700 069 APPEARANCES BY: S HRI INDRANIL BANERJEE , F.C.A. , FOR THE ASSESSEE S HRI VARINDER MEHTA , CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 02 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOU NCING THE ORDER : MARCH 02 , 201 5 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XIX , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 116 / CIT(A) - XIX/ITO,WD - 12(3),KOL/11 - 12 D ATED 13 . 12 .201 1 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. S HRI INDRANIL BANERJEE , F.C.A. , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND S HRI VARINDER MEHTA , CIT, D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL DUE TO NON - I.T.A. NO . 406 / KOL ./201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 2 OF 3 REPRESENTATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH THE HEARING NOTICES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUES IN T HE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. 4 . IN REPLY, LD. CIT, D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DONE AN EX - PARTE ASSESSMENT BY REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IF AT ALL THE ISSUES WERE RESTORED THE SAME SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. 5 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OPPORTUNI TI ES HAD BEE N GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ALL THE NOTICES. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED AN EX - PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER SHOWS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPRESENTED ITS CASE. COMING TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ISSUES COULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT IS NOTICED THAT NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN SO FAR AS THE BASIC EVIDENCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR PRODUCING THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OP PORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND WE DO SO. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND MARCH , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA GEORG E MATHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 2 ND D AY OF MARCH , 201 5 I.T.A. NO . 406 / KOL ./201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. DUM DUM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 258, M.C. GARDEN ROAD, BLOCK - B, 3 RD FLOOR, MADHUBANI APARTMENT, KOLKATA - 700 030 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, W ARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 7 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 11B, P - 7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA - 700 069 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .