Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income under Section 139 for AY 2018-19, which was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, the AO issued a notice under Section 148A, alleging the assessee received bogus bills worth Rs. 8.11 crores. Due to non-compliance, the AO passed an order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, adding Rs. 8.11 crores as unexplained credit under Section 68, treating it as accommodation from shell companies. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present its case for adjudication.
Sections Cited
139, 143(1), 148A, 148A(d), 148, 143(2), 142(1), 147, 144B, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 12.09.2024 for AY 2018-19.
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajeshwari Iron and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd.
It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 115 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition. On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is a private limited company. The assessee filed its original return of income u/s 139 of the Act for AY 2018-19. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148A based on the information received under Risk Management Strategy by CBDT, that M/s TIF Castings Ltd., M/s Ranisati Metal Industries, and M/s Ranisati Industries Ltd. others were engaged in providing bogus bills amounting to Rs. 8,11,00,000/- and the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of such bogus billing during AY 2018-19. However, the assessee did not make any compliance to the same and in consequent to above information, the Ld. AO issued order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 was issued on 21.04.2023 followed by statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1). A show cause notice was also issued during the proceedings. A show cause notice dated 08.03.2024 has also been issued, but the assessee could not make compliance of the same and thereafter, the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act making addition of Rs. 8.11,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act by treating it as accommodation from shell companies.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of non- compliance from the side of assessee.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The assessee in Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajeshwari Iron and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. course of argument undertakes that the assessee will co-operate in the proceeding if the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Ld. D.R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of lower authorities and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order against the assessee when despite sufficient opportunity afforded to the assessee, the assessee did not make any compliance. Since, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order, and the assessee submits that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to place its case, so for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass an afresh order after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to shall cooperate in the proceedings.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd July , 2025