PADMAKAR KRISHNARAO NANDEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 4(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKARAssessment Year: 2012-13
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated
30.03.2015
u/s 143(3) of the Act made various disallowances/additions, against which the Assessee before the Ld.
Commissioner has preferred first appeal on 15.04.2015, which was Shri Padmakar Krishnarao Nandekar
2
taken into consideration firstly on 14.09.2018 i.e. after three and half years from the date of filing of the appeal on 15.04.2015, thereafter on 14.03.2019
and thereafter after a gap of approximately 5 years on 30.07.2024, 27.08.2024 and 29.10.2024
which resulted into non-compliance.
Therefore, the Ld.
Commissioner, in the constrained circumstances, affirmed the findings of the AO as enumerated in the assessment order, by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the impugned order and controverted the findings of the Ld. Commissioner, whereas the Ld. D.R. supported the impugned order.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the Assessee’s appeal filed on 15.04.2015 was taken into consideration firstly after a gap of three and half years and thereafter approximately after a gap of 5 years, which could be the reason for not receiving the notice and/or non-compliance by the Assessee, as seems to be probable cause. However, the Assessee has failed to demonstrate filing of any submission/document. Even otherwise the Ld. Commissioner failed to pass the order on merit but dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine on non prosecution and without discussing the merits of the case. Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we are of the considered view that for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to imposing token cost of Rs.1100/- to be deposited in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the receipt of this order. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. Shri Padmakar Krishnarao Nandekar
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.02.2025. (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.