Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate but identical order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 06.04.2023 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2015-16.
These appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 58 days in filing the appeal, for which, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of the delay. By referring to the above affidavit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeals for adjudication. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Considering the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 admitting total loss of ₹.4,72,94,651/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2012 admitting loss of ₹.1,85,17,179/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued on 10.08.2012. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 26.06.2013. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2014 assessing total loss at ₹.65,56,273/- after making various addition/disallowances.
Similarly, for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16, the Assessing Officer has assessed the total loss at ₹.2,99,24,756/- and ₹.1,75,62,514/- respectively after making various addition/disallowances.
5. On appeal, despite various opportunities afforded, since the assessee could not file any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments to substantiate its case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for all the assessment years under appeal.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that no notice of hearing to the registered e-mail ID of the assessee was served by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, the appellate orders are liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted the matters may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its case.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the addition/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee file appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The contention of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has not served hearing notices to the registered e-mail ID of the assessee. Thus, it appears that the ld. CIT(A) might have issued hearing notices to the old e-mail ID instead of updated registered e-mail ID. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of natural justice, the assessee shall be afforded one more opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its case with suitable explanation and evidences and thereafter decide the issues in accordance with law for all the assessment years under appeal.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th October, 2023 at Chennai.