, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.785/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 SHRI ASHOK DAS NABAGRAM, PANCHPOTA, GARIA,KOLKATA-152 [ PAN NO.AEXPD 0724 M ] / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-25, AAYAKARR BHAWN, DAKHIN, 2, GARIAHAT, ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKTA-68 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 02-11-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17-11-2017 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATA DATED 16.02.2016. A SSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-53, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 19.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, WE FIND THAT NEITHER ANY BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FI LED. HOWEVER, WE NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE/ HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL DATED BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS EX PARTE ON 16.02.2016. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDER OF LD. ITA NO.785/KOL/2016 A. Y. 2010-11 SH ASHOK DAS VS. ACIT, CIR-25 KOL PAGE 2 CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND SUBMI TTED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS DULY FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED. AS SUCH, IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE US IN TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER EX PARTE WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY R EASON FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME ON MERITS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING WITH R EASONING. BUT WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF AO WITHOUT DECIDING THE SAME ON MERIT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM TO EXPLAIN HIS POINTS OF CONTENTIONS. THEREFORE, IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WIT H THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE S HOULD CO-OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND ATTEND THE HEARING AS AND WHEN REQUI RED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17/11/2017 SD/- SD/- ( % ') ( ') (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP, SR.P.S ) - /11/2017 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SHRI ASHOK DAS, NABAGRAM, PANCHPOTA, GAR IA, KOLKATA-152 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIRCLE-25, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DAKSHIN, 2 GARIAHAT, ROAD (SOUGH) KOLKATA-68 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . %%, , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDE R/ /TRUE COPY/ S R. PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO ,,