CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

The assessee is mainly aggrieved by the ex parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) and also against the addition sustained on account of alleged bogus purchases and denial of carry forward of long-term capital loss. Before us, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal had originally been filed physically in the year 2016 and thereafter, upon migration of appellate proceedings to the faceless regime, the matter remained pending for several years and ultimately came to be disposed of in the year 2025. It was submitted that nowhere from the impugned appellate order it could be discerned that the learned CIT(A) had ensured proper service of notice upon the assessee or had made any effective endeavour to verify the appellate records before proceeding to dismiss the appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that the appeal appears to have been dismissed on technical grounds observing that assessment order and appeal fee challan were not available on record, despite the fact that the appeal had admittedly been filed physically much earlier.

The learned counsel further submitted that on the issue relating to alleged non-genuine purchases, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 has already adjudicated identical

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially when the appeal was originally filed physically prior to migration into faceless appellate proceedings, the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and material available on record. It is an admitted position that the appeal had originally been filed physically in the year 2016 and thereafter the same got migrated into the faceless appellate regime. However, after a considerable lapse of time, the appeal came to be dismissed by the learned CIT(A) mainly on the ground that assessment order and appeal fee challan were not available on record. In our considered opinion, before dismissing the appeal on such technical grounds, it was incumbent upon the learned CIT(A) to verify the relevant appellate records and also to ensure that proper and effective opportunity was granted to the assessee. More so, when the appeal pertained to old physical records

We further find that the assessee has specifically pointed out that on the substantive issue relating to alleged non- genuine purchases, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years has already taken a particular view by directing estimation of gross profit at 12.5%. Such contention required due consideration and adjudication on merits by the appellate authority. However, the learned CIT(A), without granting proper and effective opportunity to the assessee to explain and rebut the issues involved, appears to have taken undue haste in disposing of the appeal instead of deciding the matter after proper verification of records and consideration of the assessee’s submissions. Under such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the matter deserves to be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after proper

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