MRS VARSHA KAUSHIK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT WARD 15(1), MUMBAI

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee company against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 27.04.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12.

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee Ms. Simoni Chouhan submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. NFAC is an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. According to her, the AO had passed the assessment order on 07.03.2014 and the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) (during the physical regime) and the assessee had filed the additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) who had called for the remand report from the AO which was evident from Mrs. Varsha Kaushik Shah the fact that AO in-turn had sought from assessee certain relevant documents in the remand proceedings. According to the Ld. AR, thereafter, the appeal of the assessee got migrated to the faceless regime on 12.02.2021. And thereafter, the assessee did not receive any notices from the Ld. NFAC. According to her, even though the Ld. NFAC has mentioned about the issuance of five (5) notices, she said that the assessee never received any notices of hearing. In this regard, it is noted that even though Ld.NFAC states to have issued five notices, but there is no assertion on the part of Ld.NFAC that the assessee have been served the notices. According to assessee, due to technical glitches, the notices might not have been served upon the assessee. According to the Ld. AR, even if it is assumed that the assessee was served the copy of notice but did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A), the appeal was required to be disposed off on merits as already ordered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF reported in (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.), Moreover, it was brought to our notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the impugned order in accordance to sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). i.e. Ld.NFAC has not decided the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to section 250 (b) of the Act. In such a factual back drop, we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been heard before the passing impugned order and decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal restored back