M/S.MEHULKUMAR RAMESHKUMAR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-2(4), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of money transfer and courier services. There was a search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of assessee and others. The assessee has filed the return of electronically on 07.03.2013 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,15,010/-. Subsequently the A.O. has issued the notice u/s 153A of the Act on the assessee. The assessee has filed a letter on 09.09.2014 to consider the return of income filed on 07.03.2013 as a due compliance. Subsequently the A.O issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act on the assessee. In compliance the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from to 2225/Mum/2022 M/s Mehulkumar Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai. - 3 - time to time and filed the details and the case was discussed. The A.O dealt exhaustively on the facts of courier services and transfer of money and made estimation of income as undisclosed commission of the assessee of Rs. 92,16,000/- and assessed the total income of the assessee of Rs. 93,31,010/- passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act on 26.03.2015.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas at the time of hearing none appeared in the appellate proceedings, therefore the CIT(A) relied on the findings of the A.O. and has dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order and prayed for an opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case on merits with the evidences before the appellate authority. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has to 2225/Mum/2022 M/s Mehulkumar Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai. - 4 - passed the ex-parte order considering the fact that there is no appearance nor any submissions are filed by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex- parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. We on perusal of the CIT(A) found that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at page 2 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not inclined to prosecute the appeal.

We find that, the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions by the A.O. and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. We considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate to 2225/Mum/2022 M/s Mehulkumar Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai. - 5 - in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee statistical purposes.

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

As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y.2011-12 except the variance in figures. Therefore, the decision rendered in above paragraphs would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the disputed issues are restored to the CIT(A) on similar directions and grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.