ITO, WARD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ARYADEEP MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, HOWRAH

This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by CIT(A)-4, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for AY 2012-13.

It is noted from the record that the appellant Revenue filed this appeal on 24.08.2016. The Registry, ITAT issued notice dated 19.01.2018 to the assessee intimating the fixation of date of hearing on 05.03.2018 and on such date, no appearance whatsoever was made on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, this Tribunal adjourned this appeal to 17.04.2018. Again, Registry, ITAT issued notice dated 07.03.2018 and the record shows that non-appearance on behalf of the assessee, the appeal was adjourned to 14.06.2018. Again, Registry, ITAT issued notice dated 20.04.2018 intimating the date of hearing on 27.09.2018 but however, no appearance was put in by the assessee and the appeal adjourned on 27.09.2018. No proceedings on 27.09.2018 and the appeal adjourned to 27.11.2018. On 27.11.2018, we find that the appeal was adjourned on 21.01.2019 on the request of the Ld.AR representing the assessee. Today i.e. 21.01.2019 when the matter was called, we find no appearance on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The respondent assessee called absent and set ex-parte.

Heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is noted from the record that the issue involved is addition u/s 68 of the Act. In assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to all 16 subscribing companies out of which 11 notices returned unserved with the postal endorsement “not known and no such company in this address”. According to AO, no satisfactory explanation as offered by the assessee regarding nature of certain amounts treated in the accounts of the assessee during the year under consideration and thereby added an amount of Rs.20,38,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the said addition by observing that the assessment should be based on proper valuation of material brought on record and is assessment made on pure guess work is bad under law. The contention of the Ld. DR, before the AO, no satisfactory explanation was offered in respect of identity and creditworthiness of share subscribing companies and genuineness of transactions and no base for the finding of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. Further, he prayed to remand the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh verification in respect of examining the details of share subscribing companies in accordance with law. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. DR and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition involved therein, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the AO for his fresh verification. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its contention. Thus, grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.