SUBHDATA COMMOSALE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058176032(1) dated 23.11.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2012-13. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 93 days. A separate condonation petition has been placed on file. After considering the averments made in the condonation petition and the reasons stated by the 2 Subhdata Commosale Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2012-13

Ld. AR for delay in filing the appeal is convincible and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
3. The assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 21.02.2013 declaring its total income NIL.
The Assessing Officer made the additions/disallowances u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained income in the assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147
of the Act. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also an ex parte order. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench to set aside the orders of both the authorities below and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer to de novo adjudicate the issue.
Ld. Sr. DR opposed this prayer of the assessee.
4. Since the assessee despite providing sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) did not present itself in the appellate proceedings, keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the IT Bar Association (ITBA) within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.
Order pronounced in the open court. (Rakesh Mishra)
Judicial Member
Dated: 25th February, 2025
JD, Sr. P.S.

3
Subhdata Commosale Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2012-13

Copy to:
1. The Appellant: Subhdata Commosale Pvt. Ltd.
2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata
3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi
4. Pr. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata
6. Guard file.By Order