BHAMARE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company has filed the return of income disclosing a total income of Rs. 42,65,590/- for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 14.10.2016 and the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny to “verify the tax deducted or collected but not deposited with central government and not added back in schedule BP (Form 3CD)”. The Assessing officer (A.O) issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and u/sec142(1) of the Act and in compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the copy of return of income, tax audit report, statement of accounts. Further, notice under Section 142(1) of the act along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee on various dates but there was no compliance. The A.O has issued summons u/sec131 of the Act and recorded the statement. Whereas the AO had dealt on the facts, provisions and statement recorded was not satisfied with the explanations and invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the expenses of Rs.79,12,200/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 1,21,77,790/- and passed the order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 04.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT (A) has considered grounds of appeal, statement of facts, finding of the A.O and has issued notice of hearing and since there was no compliance, CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal with Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO overlooking the information filed in the assessment proceedings and the Ld.AR mentioned that non-compliance of notices before the CIT(A) is not a wanton act or deliberate act and the assessee has a good case of merits and shall substantiate with material evidences and prayed for an opportunity before the Lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismiss the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued notices on various dates referred at Para 4 of the order but there was no response. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal challenging the disallowance u/sec40(a)(ia) of the Act by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non- appearance/ non-compliance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to Maharashtra State Legal services authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order and produce the proof of payment. Accordingly, We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequateopportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //True Copy//