MEDIA9 CELEBRITY MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee-company filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 14.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 24,55,530/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 29.03.2022, wherein the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 28.06.2022. During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for relevant information and details, in response to which the assessee- company furnished submissions on 13.09.2022, 13.10.2022 and 15.10.2022.

The A.O., after considering the submissions of the assessee- company and the material available on record, completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.11.2022, wherein an

Aggrieved by the rectification order passed by the A.O., the assessee-company preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the A.O. had failed to examine the invoices and payments relating to the expenditure before completion of the assessment. The assessee submitted that the addition of Rs. 53,23,502/- made u/s 69C of the Act, related to expenditure incurred towards certain professional services and that the supporting documents could not be furnished before the A.O. within the stipulated time. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices u/s 250 of the Act calling upon the assessee to furnish its submissions and supporting evidence. However, the assessee

The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the material available on record and observing that the assessee had not furnished any written submissions or documentary evidence in support of its ground of appeal despite repeated opportunities, held that the assessee had failed to substantiate its contention or disprove the findings of the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the burden was on the assessee to establish that the findings of the A.O. were incorrect and that no evidence had been filed to show any infirmity in the order of the A.O. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) found no infirmity in the order of the A.O., rejected the ground raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. submitted that, the assessee could not effectively prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) due to various difficulties and circumstances, including the ill health of the assessee and his family members. He submitted that the non-appearance was

The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee may be afforded one more effective opportunity to furnish the relevant details and documentary evidence and substantiate its claim before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), while dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, had not effectively adjudicated the issues raised by the assessee on merits. He, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, on the other hand, supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee was provided several opportunities during the

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not effectively prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and failed to furnish the requisite details and supporting evidence despite the matter being posted for hearing on several occasions. Before us, the assessee has explained the reasons for such non-appearance due to various issues, including the ill health of the assessee and his family members. We find that, the reasons so explained cannot be said to be wholly without basis and, therefore, the assessee deserves to be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). It is also an admitted fact that, the Ld. CIT(A), after providing several opportunities to the assessee, ultimately dismissed the appeal, observing that the assessee had failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of the ground

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