BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27-09-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19.

The assessee filed a letter dated 20-11-2023 through its Assistant General Manager (AGM), Financial Management & Accounts seeking adjournment stating that unavailability of its counsel due to some family tragedy. The ld. DR pointed that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal of the non-prosecution. On perusal of the record, we note that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi issued 11 notices, wherein, the appeal was adjourned from time to time on the request of assessee seeking adjournment which is evident from para 5.3 of the impugned order. Further, the assessee raised ground No. 2 for violation of principles of natural justice before us. In view of the same, we note that there was no proper representation before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected and we proceed to hear the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR.

Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed return of income claiming loss, but however, the AO determined the tax liability on book profit u/s. 115JB o the Act inter alia making disallowance on account of section 14A r.w.r. 8D and disallowance of prior period expenses. The same were challenged before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi vide grounds forming part of Form No. 35. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi issued as many as 11 notices, we find the assessee sought adjournment in all the occasions except on 16-09-2022, 02-02-2023 and 31-08-2023 which clearly establishes that there was no assistance from the assessee in supporting the grounds raised

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