SIRI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD

At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee brought to our notice that there is a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. In this regard explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal within the time limit, Learned Counsel for the Assessee brought our attention to the affidavit filed by the

On hearing the Learned Counsel for the Assessee and on perusal of the said reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time, I am of the considered view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, I condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of trading in jewellery and doing business in the name and style of M/s. Siri Jewellers Pvt Ltd. The assessee filed its return of income admitting a loss of Rs. 8,16,810/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and after due process, the A.O. completed the

Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) none appeared to represent the assessee’s case. Considering the assessee’s non-appearance, CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee does not want to pursue its appeal and therefore dismissed the assessee’s appeal by relying on the certain decisions of ITAT and other Higher Forums including the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) passed an exparte order on the ground the ground of non-appearance. On this count, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the CIT(A) ought to have given proper opportunity to the assessee to represent its case and erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee-company is a loss making company and its operations have come to stand still. He prayed that considering the principles of natural justice, assessee may be given one

On the other hand, Ld DR strongly relied on the orders of the Authorities below.

On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material on record, I find that on the grounds principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate its case. That apart, CIT(A) passed exparte order by applying the ratio in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd (supra) without considering the merits of the case. CIT(A) ought to have passed the order on merits though the assessee has not appeared. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I set-aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudication the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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