B P ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED,SAMASTIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA

(A.Y. 2015-2016) B P Engicon Private Limited 2. None appeared on behalf of the assesese at the time of hearing. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Assessing Officer examined all the facts in detail and observed that out of capital of Rs.1,24,00,000/- of M/s. B.P. Engicon Pvt. Limited (Rs.9.00 lakhs authorized and Rs.115.00 lakhs share application money), only Rs.51,54,185/- is explained and remaining capital of Rs.72,45,815/- is unexplained and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal 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 the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 31st March, 2024.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the income at Rs.1,07,63,410/- and the taxable income at (A.Y. 2015-2016) B P Engicon Private Limited Rs.72,45,815/- Thereafter the assessee preferred an 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. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

We have perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised