SPICE DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (OSD), WARD-1(3),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2428/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 July 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.2428/Kol/2024 Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd.......................................................................................Appellant Assessment Year: 2011-12 DC-9/28, Shastri Bagan, Deshbandhu Nagar, W.B. – 700059. [PAN: AAPCS1202G] VS. ACIT (OSD), Ward-1(3), Kolkata........................................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. S1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without examining the merits of the case and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed its return for AY 2011-12 declaring Nil income. The IT Department received information that the assessee had received accommodation entries of Rs.64,55,000/-. The AO reopened the case under Section 147 and made an addition of Rs.64,55,000/- under Section 68 for unexplained credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd.……...……..…………………....Appellant DC-9/28, Shastri Bagan, Deshbandhu Nagar, W.B. – 700059. [PAN: AAPCS1202G] vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward-1(3), Kolkata.………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, ACIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the NFAC [in short CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 616 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the said delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd 3. Brief facts of the case ate that the assessee is a company and filed its return on 25.03.2012 declaring total income Nil. As per information received by I.T. Department that the assessee company had received accommodation entries of Rs.64,55,000/- from shell company managed and controlled by the Loharukas during the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer believed that there was prima facie escarpment of income and reopened the case of the assessee u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Due to non-compliance of the notices sent to the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order by making an addition of Rs.64,55,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credit.

4.

Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, this time also, the assessee failed to turn up before the ld. CIT(A) on 10 occasions and ultimately, the ld. CIT(A) has no other option but to pass the impugned order by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the assessee did not turn up before this Bench. Although, Registry has issued notice to the assessee on the address provided in Form No.36. As there is no one turned up, we cannot keep this appeal pending for inordinate period, we, therefore, with the assistance of the ld. DR heard this matter.

6.

The ld. DR stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and it did not turn up before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) and even before this Bench, therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed.

7. We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that although the assessee did not turn up before the Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd authorities below, however, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex parte without going into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee, which is necessary in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, feel it necessary to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings.

7.

In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 30th July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →