Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company had gone into liquidation, and an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. The original appeal was filed by erstwhile promoters. No compliance was made before the CIT(A) due to the liquidation, resulting in an ex-parte dismissal.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the IRP, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside due to the company's liquidation and the appointment of an IRP, and whether a fresh opportunity of hearing should be granted.
Sections Cited
250, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 26.06.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 20.09.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19.
A.Y. 2018-19 Prashul Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Ld. CIT Appeals proceeded to pass an ex-parte appellate order. Such ex-parte order passed is bad in facts and in law and liable to be set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer.
2. On the given facts circumstances and judicial pronouncements Commissioner of Ld. Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition on account of unexplained Cash credits under section 68. Such addition made is bad in facts and in law and liable to be deleted.
3. Without prejudice to the above, On the given facts circumstances and judicial pronouncements Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition on account of unexplained Cash credits under section 68. Such addition made is excessive in facts and in law and liable to be reduced.
4. On the given facts circumstances and judicial pronouncements Commissioner of Income Ld. Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition on account of Notional Interest as undisclosed income on advance given to joint venture. Such addition made is bad in facts and in law and liable to be deleted.
5. Without prejudice to the above, On the given facts circumstances and judicial pronouncements Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition on account of Notional Interest as undisclosed income on advance given to joint venture. Such addition made is excessive in facts and in law and liable to be reduced.
6. On the given facts circumstances and judicial pronouncements Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance on account of expenses which are incurred by the appellant company during the F.Y. 2017-18. Such disallowance made is bad in facts and in law and liable to be deleted.
7. Without prejudice to the above, On the given facts circumstances and judicial pronouncements Commissioner of Income Ld. Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance on account of expenses which are incurred by the appellant company during the F.Y. 2017-18 and are incurred in the normal course of Business. Such disallowance made is excessive in facts and in law and liable to be reduced.”
3. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company has gone into liquidation, and an Insolvency Resolution Professional [IRP] has been appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT] vide order dated 04.07.2024. The impugned appeal was filed by the erstwhile promoters prior to the appointment of the IRP. Hence, no compliance was made before the Ld. CIT(A), as a result of which, the appeal was dismissed exparte vide order dated 20.09.2024. He has also drawn our attention to the application dated A.Y. 2018-19 Prashul Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 29.05.2025 filed before the Tribunal for admission of additional evidence, wherein copies of the appointment letter as well as intimation to the Income Tax Department regarding the same via email dated 12.06.2024 have been filed. He has also placed on record a copy of the Form B (claim form from the Income Tax Department) filed on 20.08.2024.
4. In view of the above factual position, Ld. AR requested that the matter may be restored back so that proper representation can be made before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR has not objected to the above-stated proposition.
5. After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the documents placed on record, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the IRP.