MS SMITA THACKERAY,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 21.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly. From the records, we noticed that on the previous date of hearing also, the assessee had moved applications for seeking adjournment which were rejected accordingly. But even in spite of that today

2
Ms. Smita Thackeray, Mumbai.

neither the assessee nor any of her representative appeared. From the background of the case we noticed that assessee remained non cooperative even before AO and Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the totality of the facts we are of the view that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal.
3. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments thus we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
4. At the very outset, we noticed that assessee had not cooperated and not submitted any details before the AO.
For the year under consideration, the AO had proceeded to reassess the income of the assessee on the basis of information received by the Govt. of India from the French
Authorities under Indo-French Fiscal Convention (Treaty) of 1992 which was shared to the AO. Ultimately in the absence of the assessee, order of assessment was passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act.
5. Although assessee filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee was ex-parte and could not substantiate the grounds raised by her.
6. After having gone, considering the facts of the present case and hearing ld. DR we found that assessee in Ground
No. 2 has submitted that Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal without considering the submissions together with evidences filed before him in paper book page No. 1 to 134. 3
Ms. Smita Thackeray, Mumbai.

In our view
Ld.
CIT(A) should have taken into consideration the documents and the submissions filed by the assessee.
7. Be that as it may, we are of the view that it was the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds raised by the assessee on merits after having considered the documents filed by the assessee in the paper book.
Therefore considering the overall facts of the case we are of the view that matter be restored back to the file of Ld.
CIT(A) with a direction of decide the issues raised by the assessee afresh by considering the documents and the submissions filed and relied upon by the assessee.
Needless to mention after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime
Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
8. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

4
Ms. Smita Thackeray, Mumbai.

Mumbai:

Dated: 10/12/2025

KRK, Sr. PS.

Copy of the order forwarded to:

(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order

(Asstt.