TODAY REALTY P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal, these all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.33,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961.

This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Earlier, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Subsequently, the Tribunal, vide MA No.761/Del/2019, order dated 26th February, 2021, recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled matter.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income electronically on 30.11.2014 declaring the total income at Rs.600/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,50,600/- wherein he made addition of Rs.33,50,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act since the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the deposits in the bank account. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, sustained the addition made by the AO.

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

The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that due to non-receipt of notice from the office of the CIT(A) on the last occasion, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case with evidence to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, this matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A).

The ld. DR, on the other hand, while objecting to the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel, submitted that the assessee was non-cooperative and had not availed the opportunities granted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be upheld.

I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused record. It is an admitted fact that the AO in the instant case, has made an addition of Rs.33,50,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act since the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit in the two bank accounts. I find, due to non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, sustained the addition made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. 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 hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.