RANJITGARH FINANCE CO. P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

We have heard Shri Milind Gautam, learned counsel for the assessee and Ms. Indu Sen, learned Departmental Representative.

The primary grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of its appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident company. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring nil income. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.11.2017, determining the total income at Rs.18,49,986. The variation in the income declared and income determined was due to non-grant of adjustment of brought forward loss and disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, alleging repeated non-appearance by assessee in the appeal proceedings, learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded ex parte against the assessee and dismissed the appeal.

On a reading of the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 2.2 and 3 of the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that he has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non- prosecution without deciding the grounds on merits. Though, we are of the view that in case of repeated non-compliance by assessee in the first appellate proceedings, learned Commissioner (Appeals) is well within his rights to proceed ex parte, however, as per the mandate of section 250 of the Act, he has to decide the appeal on merits.

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