ARISTODIC COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , KOLKATA

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeals within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of one day in filing each appeal. Hence the delay is condoned.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeals after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, which filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring total income of Rs.16,693/-. Later the case was reopened under section 147 on the basis of the fact that in this case, income has escaped assessment and an amount of Rs.12,83,60,300/- has been deposited in the bank 2 (A.Y. 2007-2008) Aristodic Commercial Pvt. Limited accounts of the assessee. Information was received regarding the source of this huge amount of money received by the assessee, when Shri M.M. Daga, a key person of Badalia Group, (where search and seizure operation was conducted) in his deposition under section 131 of the Act, stated that he used to take cash from the assessee-company and deposit them in Bank account and used cheque in the name of the assessee-company. Since the assessee-company is a beneficiary of this accommodation entry, it is believed that income has escaped assessment. Hence, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on the assesese on 21.03.2014 requesting him to file return for the AY 2007-08. The assessee did not file any return against the notice issued. Again, notice under section 142(1) was issued and served upon the assesee through registered post. The assessee did not comply to the statutory notices issued to him. Without getting no compliance from the side of assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act treating the entire amount of deposit of Rs.12,83,60,300/- as undisclosed cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs.12,83,76,993/- in both the appeals.

Being not satisfied, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed 3 (A.Y. 2007-2008) Aristodic Commercial Pvt. Limited the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals ex-parte on 24th January, 2025 mentioning that the appellant-assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals.

Against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee preferred appeals before the ITAT.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative. At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to our notice that the appellant-assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the revenue authorities during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income of assessee at Rs.12,83,76,993/- in both the appeals. Thereafter the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim for the relevant assessment year in both the appeals. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

We have perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in both the appeals in order to meet the principle of natural justice, 4