SWASTIK INFRALOGICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2018-19 arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company, engaged in the business of civil construction and infrastructure development, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 declaring total

The Assessing Officer further disallowed deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IA amounting to Rs.11,41,54,539/- holding that the assessee was merely acting as a contractor and not as a developer eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of infrastructure projects executed for Government bodies.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), as noted in the impugned order, issued several notices during the appellate proceedings. However, according to the Ld. CIT(A), despite granting as many as fourteen opportunities, the assessee either sought adjournments or failed to make effective compliance. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal ex parte and confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

Before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the appeal has been dismissed without adjudicating the issues on merits. It was submitted that due to difficulties faced during faceless proceedings, the assessee could not effectively place relevant submissions and supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted in the

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee during appellate proceedings. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to avail the opportunities granted and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing the impugned ex parte order.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed from the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on account of non- compliance by the assessee despite granting multiple opportunities. At the same time, we note that the issues involved in the present appeal pertain to substantial additions including addition under section 69B and disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, which require proper adjudication on merits after considering submissions and evidences of the assessee.

Though the conduct of the assessee in repeatedly seeking adjournments cannot be appreciated, however, considering the principles of natural justice and in order to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee is also directed to promptly comply with notices and furnish all details/documents as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(A)

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