FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

When the appeal called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. It is observed, notice of hearing issued through speed post has returned back unserved. However, considering the fact that the primary grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of its appeal by learned first appellate authority, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material available on record. As could be seen from the grounds raised, in ground no. 3, assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the ex parte disposal of its appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Briefly, the facts are, the assessee, earlier known as “M/s. Times A & M (India) Ltd.”, is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.4,15,55,220. The return of income filed by the assessee, as aforesaid, was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 15.12.2018 determining the total income at Rs.10,71,16,830. The enhancement in income determined by the Assessing Officer was due to disallowance of an amount of Rs.8,55,61,607 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source on payment made to its holding company FIITJEE Limited.

Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, by the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose of assessee’s appeal ex parte by sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.

On a reading of the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 3.1 of the impugned order, it is observed that assessee’s appeal was fixed for hearing on four occasions i.e. 07.10.2019, 27.08.2019, 11.09.2019 and 04.10.2019. Since, on previous three occasions, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had granted adjournment, he refused to grant adjournment on 04.10.2019 and proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte. Upon going through the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.6 of the impugned order, we are of the view that assessee’s appeal was disposed of primarily on the ground of non-prosecution.

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