PUSHPMALA DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-9(3),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 775/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 March 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 775/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pushpmala Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata (PAN: AAGCP 0993 E) Appellant / (अपीलार्थी) Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Date of Hearing / सुनवाई की तिथि 24.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उ‌द्घोषणा की तिथि 17.03.2025 For the assessee / निर्धारिती की ओर से None For the revenue / राजस्व की ओर से Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT Sr. D.R Per Pradip Kuma1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A). The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,64,25,000/- as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act for AY 2012-13. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-appearance.

Held

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits. Since the dismissal was in limine, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits when the assessee failed to appear.

Sections Cited

143(2), 131(1), 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 29.05.2023 for AY 2012-13.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pushpmala Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 2. The case was called out but none appears on behalf of the assessee. It appears from the order sheet that in the earlier date also the assessee was not appeared. The Bench has decided to dispose of this case after hearing the Ld. D.R.

The Ld. D.R has submitted that the assessee neither submitted any response before the AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A). The submission of the Ld. D.R is that since the assessee was completely non-vigilant hence the order passed by the AO should be confirmed.

Upon hearing the submission of Ld. DR, we have perused the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). The case of the assessee as it reveals from the assessment order that for AY 2012-13 the assessee filed return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 5,400/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, notices issued u/s 143(2) was issued, in response to the notice that the assessee company filed certain primary details but when summons u/s 131(1) was issued there was no compliance to the summon, as a result of which, an amount of Rs. 2,64,25,000/- declared as undisclosed u/s 68 of the Act and added in the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine without discussing into the merit of the case as the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A).

We have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that since there was no response to the notices issued to the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO and dismissed the appeal. There was no discussion by the Ld. CIT(A) on the merit of the case. Since the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine not on merit, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order afresh on merit and if the assessee appears before him, the order shall be passed after hearing the assessee.