PARMESHWAR MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2440/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 June 2025AY 2014-2015Bench: the Ld. AO. 1.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded on pages 3 and 4 of the impugned order that there was no response to the notices issued from time to time, as many as 7 times by the Ld. CIT(A), fixing the dates for hearing. Needless to say, the action of the Ld. AO was confirmed and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT observed the assessee's casual approach in responding to notices. However, in the interest of substantive justice, both appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their facts and documents.

What were the facts?

For ITA 2440/Kol/2024, the AO passed a Section 144 order making additions for undisclosed sales, loans, trade payables, and share application money due to the assessee's non-compliance, which the CIT(A) confirmed. For ITA 2441/Kol/2024, the AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 for alleged bogus accommodation entries, adding Rs. 1,24,35,000 under Section 69A, also confirmed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. The assessee appealed both orders to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 144 and Section 147/69A were justified given the assessee's alleged non-compliance before lower authorities, and whether the matter should be remanded for adequate opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., 85, Banerjee Para Road, Paschim Putiari, Kolkata - 700041 [PAN: AAECP9821B] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Raja Sengupta CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.06.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 24.06.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This is a batch of two appeals of the same assessee pertaining to the same assessment year while pertains to order of AO passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”).

1.1 This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 30.09.2024.

1.3 In this case, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 144 of the Act by making addition & 2441/Kol/2024 Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. on account of undisclosed sales, loan given, trade payable and share application money. As it has been mentioned earlier, this order has been passed u/s 144 of the Act since it appears that the assessee did not make any compliance to the hearing notices, before the Ld. AO.

1.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded on pages 3 and 4 of the impugned order that there was no response to the notices issued from time to time, as many as 7 times by the Ld. CIT(A), fixing the dates for hearing. Needless to say, the action of the Ld. AO was confirmed and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

2.

The Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee was given ample opportunity to present his case but he has failed to do so before the lower authorities.

3.

We have carefully considered the documents before us and it is felt that in the interest of substantive justice this appeal deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It is expected that the assessee would avail of the opportunities to present the facts of his case before the Ld. CIT(A). In light of this, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

This appeal emanates from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 30.09.2024.

5.

In this case, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on account of alleged bogus accommodation entries received from two entities. It is seen that in spite of several notices issued by the Ld. AO, the assessee did not make any presentation of facts and thereafter, the Ld. AO added an amount of Rs. 1,24,35,000/- u/s 69A of the Act.

& 2441/Kol/2024 Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the CIT(A) where also it is recorded on page 3 at para 4 of the impugned order that three notices sent fixing the case for hearing were not responded to at all. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the entire addition made u/s 69A of the Act.

6.

Further aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds mainly challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO and the denial of opportunity for presenting the facts. The impugned amount of Rs. 1,24,35,000/- added u/s 69A of the Act has also been challenged. As mentioned for none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.

7.

The Ld. DR pointed out that the Ld. AO has given detailed findings regarding the fact that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries. The Ld. DR pointed out that neither before the Ld. AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A) did the assessee make any presentation of facts. In this manner, the Ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below.

8.

We have carefully considered the facts of the case and it is seen that the assessee has been rather casual in responding to notices fixing the case for hearing issued by both of the authorities below. However, we are also conscious of the fact that as in appeal (supra), in the interest of substantive justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and this mater restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, while the Ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard, the assessee would be expected to be alert to such opportunities and file his submissions and documents, as deemed it fit. Accordingly, the appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

Considering the discussion above both of the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes since they are remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →