R.A.ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) CIRCLE - 2(1), MUMBAI

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and for the years under consideration, the proceedings have been concluded by the Assessing officer by passing order u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), wherein the assessee has been treated as ‘assessee in default’ for non-deduction/non-

In the above factual background, our reference was drawn to the affidavit filed by the partner of the assessee firm Mr. Rajendra K. Kothari, where he has explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). He has further explained that though the ld. CIT(A) has issued notices during the appellate proceedings, however, these notices were being issued and sent on the earlier email id which were used for filing of the ITR and belonging to an old employee, who has since left the assessee firm. It was submitted that while filing the appeal of the assessee, the firm has mentioned another email id, however, no notices were issued on the said email id provided by the assessee firm. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee firm was not aware of the notices so issued and as a result, the necessary compliances/submissions couldn’t be made before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A) was not intentional but purely due to genuine reasons beyond the control of the assessee firm and therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh on merits of the case.

The ld. DR has been heard, who has relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. It was submitted that though the notices have been issued during the course of appellate proceedings, there has been no compliance, at the same time, it was fairly submitted that there is no finding on the merits of the case and therefore, where the Bench so

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the notices have been issued during the course of appellate proceedings and for the reason that the notices were issued on the earlier email id and not on the email id furnished by the assessee as part of its appeal documentation, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance/non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in light of the limited prayer so raised by the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, which has not been seriously disputed by the ld. DR., we deem it appropriate that all these matters be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) to consider the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal, where applicable as well as to decide on the merits of the case in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.