SPICE DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. ACIT (OSD), WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

ITA 2428/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the NFAC (CIT(A)) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed by 616 days, for which a condonation petition was accepted. The primary issue arose from the assessee's failure to comply with notices regarding alleged accommodation entries amounting to Rs.64,55,000 from a shell company, leading to an ex parte order under section 68 of the Act. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed orders in absence of the assessee, who failed to appear despite multiple notices. The Tribunal, noting the absence of a merits-based decision in the CIT(A)'s order, remanded the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712964 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit; Accommodation entries
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.2428/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd.……...……..…………………....Appellant DC-9/28, Shastri Bagan, Deshbandhu Nagar, W.B. – 700059. [PAN: AAPCS1202G] vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward-1(3), Kolkata.………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, ACIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the NFAC [in short CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 616 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the said delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.2428/Kol/2024 Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd 2 3. Brief facts of the case ate that the assessee is a company and filed its return on 25.03.2012 declaring total income Nil. As per information received by I.T. Department that the assessee company had received accommodation entries of Rs.64,55,000/- from shell company managed and controlled by the Loharukas during the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer believed that there was prima facie escarpment of income and reopened the case of the assessee u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Due to non-compliance of the notices sent to the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order by making an addition of Rs.64,55,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credit. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, this time also, the assessee failed to turn up before the ld. CIT(A) on 10 occasions and ultimately, the ld. CIT(A) has no other option but to pass the impugned order by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the assessee did not turn up before this Bench. Although, Registry has issued notice to the assessee on the address provided in Form No.36. As there is no one turned up, we cannot keep this appeal pending for inordinate period, we, therefore, with the assistance of the ld. DR heard this matter. 6. The ld. DR stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and it did not turn up before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) and even before this Bench, therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed. 7. We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that although the assessee did not turn up before the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.2428/Kol/2024 Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd 3 authorities below, however, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex parte without going into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee, which is necessary in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, feel it necessary to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 30th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 30.07.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "