PIYALI TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 7(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Since both the appeals under consideration arise out of ex parte orders passed by the Ld. Commissioners and involve identical facts, circumstances and issues, thus the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. For the sake of convenience and brevity, ITA No. 8202/Mum/2025 is taken as the lead case and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other connected appeal.

Coming to ITA No. 8202/Mum/2025, it is observed that the AO, vide assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, made an addition of Rs.1,05,58,635/- on account of brokerage/commission charged on debtors, creditors and loans and advances.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid addition, filed the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, despite having been afforded five opportunities during the appellate proceedings, the Assessee neither complied with the notices nor filed any submissions or supporting documents. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner, after considering the assessment order and the material available on record, affirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee submitted that due to miscommunication, it could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and, therefore, one final opportunity may be granted in the interest of justice to enable it to substantiate its claim effectively. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed the submissions advanced by the Assessee.

If the conduct of the Assessee is considered, it does not deserve any leniency. However, it is also a matter of fact that the issues involved in the appeal remain to be adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner in their proper perspective and proper manner, particularly in the absence of the submissions and supporting documents, which the Assessee failed to file before the appellate authority.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to afford one final opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, subject to the condition that the Assessee shall deposit a sum of Rs. 11,000/- with the Revenue under “other head” within 15 days from the date of this order.

We further clarify that, in the event of any subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any further leniency.

The matter is, accordingly, restored to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh in the above terms after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 8202/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Since ITA No. 8203/Mum/2025 involves identical facts, circumstances and issues, our findings recorded in ITA No. 8202/Mum/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis thereto. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 8203/Mum/2025 is also allowed for statistical purposes. 3

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms.