M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

This appeal is against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore dated 1.11.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15.

The assessee is a company, filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 26.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.7,32,61,635. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) determining the loss of assessee at Rs.82,25,177 which was later rectified to an income of Rs.2,73,01,000. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).

The extract of the submissions made by the ld. AR is as given below:-

It is submitted that the reason for not responding to the notices sent by the office of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] was that, the said matters were handled by our tax consultant one Sri. Jayachandra Reddy, who also appeared before the learned assessing officer in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. He was taking care off of all our tax matters and he used to appear before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] in all our group matters.

It is submitted that whenever the notices were received by the appellant the same was forwarded to the office of Sri. Jayachandra Reddy, since he was only handling the Income- tax matters of our group concerns.

It is submitted that unfortunately the notices sent by the appellant to the tax consultant office was never responded due to the fact that the said tax consultant i.e. Sri. Jayachandra Reddy, developed certain medical issues as he was having Parkinson disease and he was not regular in attending the office works.

It is submitted that due to this fact, the appellant was under a bonafide belief that the said notices were attended to and to the shock of the appellant the impugned appellate order was passed mentioning that the none of the hearing notices were not responded. When enquired about the non- appearance from the Tax Consultant, he expressed that he not regular in attending his office works and also stated that he is suffering from Parkinson disease and he was under medical care. 7. Wherefore, it is submitted that not responding to the notice of hearing sent by the office of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]-11, Bengaluru is neither intentional nor deliberate and which is beyond the control of the appellant and it is humbly prayed that considering the above circumstances the appellant request this Hon'ble Bench not to take any adverse view as regard to the hearing notices not been responded and take a lenient and compassionate view in this regard in the interest of justice and equity.” 8. The ld. DR did not raise any objections to the request of the ld AR for remitting the issue back to the CIT(Appeals).

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the submissions of the ld AR it is noticed that the consultant Shri Jayachandra Reddy has some medical issues of Parkinson disease due to which he could not attend regular office work. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue back to the CIT(A) giving one more opportunity to the assessee and direct the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits. The assessee is directed to submit all the relevant details and cooperate with the appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.