ECOSPACE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 7, Kolkata (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 21/02/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2012-13.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,78,00,000/-, which was added by the Assessing Officer with the aid of Section 68 of the Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 15/01/2013 declaring total income as “NIL”. Its case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the Assessing Officer that the assessee has received fresh share application money of Rs.13,78,00,000/-. In response to the notice of hearing u/s 142(1) of the Act, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ecospace Suppliers Private Limited 2 no one appeared before the Assessing Officer nor any detail was submitted. Hence, an ex-parte order based on the best judgment of the Assessing Officer was passed making addition of this amount.

Before the ld. First Appellate Authority, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

In response to the notice of hearing no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. Sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act, contemplates that the ld. CIT(A) would state the points of disputes and thereafter record reasons on these points. In other words, appeal of the assessee ought to have been disposed off on merits instead of dismissal for want of prosecution. After apprising ourselves with the conduct of the assessee regarding non-submission of any material before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A), we tried to take the exercise ourselves for deciding the appeal on merits by treating it as if it is a first appeal but we fail to appreciate the true character of the transactions. Even the assessee did not file anything before any of the authorities. It merely completed the formality of filing its appeal. In other words, it has not been prosecuting the litigation.

We have perused the statement on facts filed before the ld. First Appellate Authority along with Form No. 35 but, even in this statement of facts, the assessee has simply pointed out the details of the companies who are share applicants have been submitted before the