M/S. FAIRMONT VENTURE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(3)(2), MUMBAI

M/s. Fairmont Venture Pvt. Ltd. 2. At the outset, it is observed that notices sent to the assessee have been returned back by the Postal Authorities with the remarks ‘incomplete address/ not known, which goes to show that Assessee is not situated at the address mentioned in Form No.36 , hence I am constrained to decide this appeal ex-parte.

In this case, the AO vide Assessment Order dated 02/12/2017 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act made the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- being 1% of Rs.2,50,00,000/- as commission estimated, against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner who, though issued various notices for hearing on 26/12/2018, 21/05/2019, 10/08/2020, 04/01/2021 and 01/11/2022 for furnishing submissions and evidences in support of grounds of appeal filed before him. However, the assessee neither responded to the notices nor filed any submission and also made no request for adjournment, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. I observe that the ld. Commissioner has not decided the appeal on merits, hence, for just and proper decision of the case and for the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to remand the instance case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, hence the case is remanded accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.