Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income which was selected for limited scrutiny regarding promotion expenses. The AO disallowed a significant amount under Section 37(1) for non-compliance. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on the assessee's application for condonation of delay and for furnishing additional evidence under Rule 46A. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the condonation of delay and the application for additional evidence.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 144, 143(3A), 143(3B), 37(1), 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajnish Wellness Limited, Income Tax Officer, 6th Floor, Ward-5(3)(1), Navjivan Commercial, vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lamington road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. PAN : AAHCR3491G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 25-03-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income which was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the genuineness of the large scale promotion expenses. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) were issued calling for the necessary details and documentation in support of the sales promotion expenses. However, there was no compliance on part of the assessee and the AO thereafter, passed the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide order dt. 05-01-2021 wherein the amount of Rs. 2,85,38,389/- was disallowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the appeal so filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) due to non-prosecution. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed. Considering that notices issued have been duly served on the assessee and there has been non-compliance and the matter has been adjourned from time to time, it was decided that no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further and to decide the matter based on material available on record.
Heard the Ld.DR and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that there was delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) by 1413 days and the assessee has submitted a condonation application explanation as to why there was a delay in filing the appeal and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. Further, the assessee has sought permission of the Ld. CIT(A) to furnish additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating upon the application so filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay has dismissed the appeal on account of non- prosecution. Further, there is no adjudication on the application seeking furnishing of the additional evidences under Rule 46A so filed by the assessee.
In light of the same, we deem it appropriate to set aside to the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh including condonation of delay as well as application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the assessee is also provided one more opportunity, where the matter could be represented before the Ld.CIT(A). In light of the same, the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes