KIWI DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC dated 07.03.2025, passed against the assessment order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018–19.

Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed its return of income for AY 2013–14 declaring a total income nil. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act based on information that the assessee had received a sum of ₹1.30 crores during FY 2012–13 from Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd., alleged to be a paper company engaged in providing accommodation entries. The AO analysed the bank statement and financials of Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and concluded that the said receipt represented unexplained credit. In response to the notice under Section 148, the assessee filed its return Kiwi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd and submitted copies of its audited financials, ITR, computation, bank statements, ledger accounts and Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd., and sales bills. However, the AO was not satisfied and added ₹1.30 crores as unexplained income under Section 68, invoking Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed ex parte as the assessee failed to appear or submit written submissions despite multiple opportunities between 19.09.2024 and 11.02.2025.

Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal at time of hearing the Ld. AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order ex parte due to non-appearance of the Authorised Representative and sought one more opportunity to substantiate its claim.

On the other hand, the DR opposed the plea, emphasizing that multiple chances were given and the assessee failed to avail any of them. It was further argued that the assessee is a habitual defaulter, and hence, the Ld. CIT(A)’s order should be sustained.

We, after hearing both parties and perusing the records, find that in the present case the assessee failed to comply with notices both during the reassessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) had no option but to pass an ex parte order due to complete non- cooperation. However, in the interest of justice and considering the assessee’s request for one final opportunity, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. Accordingly the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with a direction that the assessee is to cooperate fully and submit all relevant documents before the CIT(A) as and when called upon and a nominal cost of ₹5,000 is imposed on the Kiwi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd assessee for negligent conduct, to be deposited into the Central Government account under the head “Miscellaneous head Income Tax Department.”. The Ld. CIT(A) shall proceed to dispose of the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 31st July, 2025.