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

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.