KARLA ENGINE COMPONENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -10(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 15.11.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.1,28,52,000/- on account of difference between actual consideration paid and stamp duty valuation u/s 50C of the Act and therefore the Assessee challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, who though afforded 5 opportunities to the Assessee, lastly while issuing notice dated 02.12.2014 fixing the date for compliance on 10.12.2024, however, as per impugned order the Assessee made no compliance and therefore the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and consequently affirmed the addition made by the AO.

Whereas it is a fact as demonstrated by the Assessee by producing the acknowledgment dated 10.12.2024 that the Assessee had submitted various documents as well as written submission before the Ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, the Assessee had filed the relevant documents in response to the notice dated 02.12.2024 by which the Assessee was directed to comply with the notice on or before 10.12.2024, however, from the acknowledgment it is not appearing at what time the Assessee had submitted the relevant documents.

And therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality specific to the effect that the impugned order is an ex-parte and the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine and the Assessee has duly filed the relevant documents on or before the date of passing the impugned order, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.

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