RELY ON PHARMACEUTICALS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), PUNE

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 Rely on Pharmaceuticals

At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR inviting our attention to the impugned order of Ld. FAA has submitted that, aggrieved by the best judgment order of the Ld. AO dt. 08/12/2017 passed u/s 144 of the Act, the appellant assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. NFAC on 15/01/2018, however the reasons behind its control, the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in support of its claim. For the reasons the Ld. NFAC without dealing case on merits has dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The appellant however for fair justice seeks one more opportunity by undertaking to adduce necessary evidences in support of its claim and to co-operate in remand proceedings before the Ld. NFAC. Per contra the Ld. Senior DR solidifying the facts, has contended that under faceless regime the appellant did neither respond to any of the notices served to it nor had brought on record a proof of having adduced any material in support of its claim, consequently the Ld. NFAC had no choice but to confirm the findings of Ld. AO in the absence of deprecative material on record.

After hearing rival contentions, perused the material placed on record in light of Rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 and we find that due to COVID-19 coupled with other consequential reasons the appellant assessee failed to comply with the notices and adduce evidential documents before the first appellate authority below, which resulted into ex-parte proceedings without effective determination of rights and liabilities of either party on merits.

We also note that, in the light of restriction placed by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251, the Ld. NFAC without remanding the ex-parte assessment has dismissed the appeal of the appellant assessee de-facto. However said dismissal in our view is suffered from the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which mandates the Ld. first appellate authority to state the points for its determination, the decision thereon and the reason for such decision while disposing of the appeal instituted before it u/s 246A of the Act.

For the reason we see force in the request of the appellant to remand the matter back to the file of first appellate authority to deal with aforestated deficiency and to pass a speaking order on merits. Since the rights and liabilities in the extent appeal have not been effectively dealt with on merits, in all the fairness, without commenting on its merits we deem it fit to remand the case back to the file of the Ld. NFAC for de- novo adjudication in the light of section 250(6) of the Act, ergo we order accordingly.