SNB INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3) (2), MUMBAI

When this appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed.

The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business of infrastructure development, primarily working on contracts from BMC. For the year under consideration, assessee e- filed its return of income on 27/09/2012 declaring total income at Rs. 4,42,19,890. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,49,54,600. Pursuant to information received from office of DDIT Unit 7(2), Mumbai, reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Following the procedure laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC), reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were concluded and addition of Rs. 50 lakhs was made under section 68 by the Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act.

In appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite various notices being issued, neither any reply/submission was filed on behalf of the assessee nor assessee responded to any of the notices. Accordingly, vide ex parte impugned order dated 22/03/2022, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Having considered the submissions of learned DR and perused the material available on record, we find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO without assigning any reasons in support of its conclusion and without dealing with any of the grounds raised by the assessee on merits as well as on invocation of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. We further find that the learned CIT(A) has not even discussed merits of the case vis-à-vis the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to file of learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. Needless to mention that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.