CELLPAP INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 22.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19.

At the very outset, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) by holding that the assessee has not responded to the deficiency letters issued to the appellant and has failed to file any response.

Be that as it may, considering the submissions of both the parties, we found that the submissions and counter submissions raised by the respective parties needs further verification. Thus, in our view the matter deserve to be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to verify and confirmation as to whether the assessee had in fact filed its Form -35, submissions, application for additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules along with grounds of appeal and in case it is found that assessee had in fact complied with all the directions and had removed deficiencies then in that eventuality decided the same on merits and in case it is found that assessee has not complied with any of the notices for removing deficiencies then in that eventuality one more opportunity be given to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the assessee in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Thereafter Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

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