AGRAVANSHI PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA, SUNDARGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We therefore, decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of bricks and wholesale and retails trade of metals and metal ores at the city of Rourkela, Odisha. The assessee filed its return of income on 15.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.14,42,99,300/- . The return was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue(s) share capital/other capital and accordingly e- notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was generated through ITBA module on 29.06.2021. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing officer observed that the share capital reflected in the balance sheet of assessee company against investors have no means to invest in the assessee-company. From the record, it is seen that the assessee failed to prove the credit appearing the balance sheet. As the assessee failed to discharge its onus cast upon by the st4atute by providing complete creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions, the amount of Rs.17,00,00,000/- shown as new share capital received from the investor/depositors was treated as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

The ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the order of ld. Assessing Officer as the assessee has nothing substantive to offer in defense of its allegations. At the time of hearing, the assessee remained completely silent, failing to furnish any response or submission in support of the grounds raised. Even in reply to notices issued under section 250, the assessee did not file a single reply. This persistent non-participation signals an absence of contestable material or argument warranting judicial intervention.

On being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any

We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. The assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of its claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into merit of the case. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee was not in a position to furnish some of the evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. But now he requested to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh and to examine these documents. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. Assessing Officer failing which the Ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.