M/S. S. P. DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), PUNE

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the real estate business. It filed its original return of income for AY. 2014-15 on 29-11-2014, declaring total income at Rs. 95,03,48,140/- which was followed by return u/s. 153A of the Act filed on 25-07-2017, declaring total income at Rs.113,48,00,100/-. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 18-11-2015 and pursuant thereto the Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 113,60,31,830/-. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated in respect of one of the major additions of Rs. 18,44,51,962/-

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 51 days. Despite issue of several notices of hearing by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee remained non-compliant. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore, endorsed the findings of the Ld.AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution placing reliance on the decision(s) of the – (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another [118 ITR 461], (ii) Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late TukojiroHolkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) and (iii) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) [296 ITR 495].

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld.AR submitted that non-compliance to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) was not deliberate as the assessee did not receive the

The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that despite several opportunities granted to the assessee, the assessee failed to make any compliance/representation before the Ld.CIT(A) and, therefore, he was fully justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was non-compliance to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) which constrained him to dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before us, the Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee did not receive the notices as they were issued on incorrect email id, due to which the assessee remained non-compliant before the Ld.CIT(A). He has therefore, humbly prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details/documents. We observe that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by endorsing the findings of the Ld.AO, without himself going into the merits of the case. The appellate order reveals that he has relied on the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another [118 ITR 461] and several other cases (supra) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, the Ld.CIT(A) may decide the appeal where the assessee does not prosecute

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be sent back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and as per fact and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date, without seeking any adjournment, unless required for a sufficient cause failing which the Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

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