M/S SATEC ENVIR ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE 2(2), MUMBAI

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee Smt. Vinita Shah drew our attention to the fact that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) (both appeals) are ex-parte orders and the assessee was not able to appear/contest/submit the written submission/relevant documents for want of proper notice. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee had not received any intimation by post/e-mail regarding the listing of appeals. In order to support the aforesaid contention, the assessee has filed an affidavit of the director of the assessee company Shri Amarprakash Agarwal. In the affidavit, the director has contended that he came to A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Satec Envir Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. know about the impugned orders while casually verifying the e-filing portal that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals preferred by it. And therefore, there was delay also in filing the appeals which may also be condoned.

In this regard, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has fixed the appeal on four (4) days/dates and had given the details of it as well as dates of issuing notice. However, finding no response from assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. The only reason given by assessee is that even though in Form No. 35 it has given the email Id as satec57@gmail.com, however, the notices could not be found/traced in it. According to the Ld. AR, may be due to technical snag, the digital notice could not have been received by assessee. In order to support the aforesaid contention, the assessee has filed an affidavit of not receiving the copy of notice of hearing of the appeal. The assessee has also submitted that immediately after coming to know about the ex-parte order it had filed the appeal before this Tribunal. And in that process there is a delay of eight (8) months in filing of appeal. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the assessee was in the dark about the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in both appeals, we condone the delay for filing the appeals. And since reasonable cause has been made out for non-appearance/filing of written submission/relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A), and since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders without hearing the assessee and without going into merits of the grounds raised

by assessee, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file and A.Y. 2012