ABL SOFTMINEW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), NEW DELHI

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in confirming an addition of Rs.27,69,077/- to the returned income of Rs.30,38,049/-.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company. Return of income in this case has not been filed by the assessee. Subsequently it came to notice through NMS software that the assessee company had deposited cash with Axis Bank and earned fees from professional/technical services during the F.Y.20110-11, relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 but no return of income was filed. Accordingly, proceeding u/s 148 were initiated after recoding the reasons for the same and taking approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2018. In response to notice the assessee filed income tax return on 16.04.2018, declaring current loss of Rs. 30,38,349/-. Subsequently assessment u/s 147 was completed on 15.11.2018 at assessed loss of Rs. 2,68,972/-. In the assessment order AO made an addition of Rs. 25,00,077/- u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash deposit, unexplained unsecured loan and unexplained share application money. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.2,69,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of current liability and sundry creditor.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance, but, has not decided the appeal on merit. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).

The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), therefore, heavy cost should be levied on the assessee.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before him for which he has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, I find, the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the IT Act, according to which, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points of determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Since the ld.CIT(A), in the instant case, has not decided the appeal on merit, and simply dismissed for non-prosecution, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment