AMI DEEPAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL, DELHI

These are the six appeals filed by the assessee from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [the learned CIT (A)] passed on 29th May, 2023, for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 and on 20th May, 2023, for A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the ITO ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai, the learned Assessing Officer on 23rd December, 2016, for A.Y. 2009-10, on 20th December, 2017, for A.Y. 2010-11 and on 21st December, 2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-

Thus, these appeals were dismissed holding that the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) were not responded and therefore, the orders of the learned Assessing Officer were upheld.

Assessee aggrieved for all these six assessment years against that appellate orders.

The fact for A.Y. 2009-10, which is the lead year shows that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of furniture items. She filed her return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29th September, 2009, declaring total income of ₹3,14,780/-, after claiming deduction of ₹81,71,138/- under Section 80IA of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Subsequently, information was received from DDIT, Investigation Wing, Unit 4(4), Mumbai, vide letter dated 4th March, 2016, wherein information received from Dy. Director of Central Excise, Mumbai shows that M/s Amardip Design being proprietary concern of the assessee started its Roorkie unit operations from A.Y. 2008-09 and claimed deduction from A.Y. 2008-09. However, the information forwarded shows that no production was done at Roorkie plant but production was done at Daman unit,

For A.Y. 2012-13, the learned Assessing Officer denied the deduction of ₹89,03,460/- and on appeal before the learned CIT (A) on all the four occasions, no response was made and therefore, identical appellate order was passed.

For A.Y. 2014-15, the deduction of ₹20,34,494/- was denied and in appellate proceedings, assessee did not turn up on five different occasions and therefore, similar appellate order was passed.

For A.Y. 2013-14, the learned Assessing Officer denied the deduction of ₹1,11,01,059/-, and in appeal on five occasions, assessee did not respond and therefore, similar appellate order was passed.

Therefore, in all these appeals it is the non compliance of the assessee before the learned CIT (A), which has resulted into passing of the order ex-parte, on account of non-appearance.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that when the assessee has been served the notices on five to six different occasions but on all occasions, assessee failed to respond the same. The learned CIT (A) after stating so many judicial precedents have decided the issue. As nothing is required to be stated

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that when appeal being preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT (A), assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A). There is no denial of this fact. It is also not denied that notices have been issued to the email address mentioned by the assessee in the appeal memo. Before us, the claim of the assessee is that there is a change in the email address after filing of form no.35. This is not disputed by the Revenue. Even, according to Section 250(2) of the Act, the appellant have right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal. The learned CIT (A) has also not decided the appeal on the merits of the case and merely upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer dismissing appeal on non prosecution.

Therefore, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves one more opportunity. By this order, restoring all these appeals before the ld CIT (A) , we direct the assessee to furnish/ submits the paper books for all those six assessment years within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order before the learned CIT (A) and we also direct the learned CIT (A) that after considering the submission of the assessee and granting opportunity of hearing, if asked for, decide the issue afresh on the merits of the case, in accordance with the law.

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes.