GEM CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-27(1), MUMBAI

On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material on records and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessee has also filed an application for seeking to lead additional evidence on the ground that the said evidence could not be provided before the lower authorities as the assessee had no business activities since F.Y: 2015-16 and had closed bank account and VAT / CST number with no access to the bank statements / copy of VAT forms at the time of reassessment or during the Ld. CIT(A) proceedings. 5. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee, we are of the view that since the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 6. However the assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) since we have restore the main appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication therefore assessee is given liberty to move appropriate application before Ld. CIT(A) for admission of 3 ITA No. 5896/Mum/2024 AY: 2013-14 Gem Corporation, Mumbai.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/08/2025 - (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTAMT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)