YASHRAJ BIOTECHNOLOGY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G’ BENCH
MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT
MEMBER
&

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Yashraj
Biotechnology
Limited
C-232, TTC
Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACY0982C
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri. Dr. K. Shivaram Sr.
Advocate & Shashi Bekal
Revenue by Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Ramesh – Sr. AR
Date of Hearing
15/01/2025
Date of Pronouncement
17/01/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Appeal no. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 LUCKNOW/10005/2021-22 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Yashraj Biotechnology Limited

2
Assessment year [A.Y.] 2022-23, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution.
2. The brief facts under appeal state that the appellant assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 29.11.2022, declaring total income of Rs. 7,17,89,880/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 29.07.2023, determining the total income of Rs. 12,06,26,290/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution.
3. Assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that learned
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid addition and not giving certain credits and interest levied by learned AO/CPC without going on the merits of the case in default of the appellant assessee.
4. Perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee and learned DR for the revenue.
5. Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in default of the appellant which is not on merits of the case. Prayed to restore the matter back to the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
6. Learned DR has submitted that the assessee was provided various opportunities by learned CIT(A) but the assessee did not turn up before the first appellate authority for making submissions. Prayed to dismiss assessee’s appeal.
7. The perusal of the impugned order shows that learned CIT(A) issued notices to the appellant assessee for hearing on Yashraj Biotechnology Limited

3
03.11.2023, 02.05.2024, 07.06.2024 and 07.08.2024 but for no avail. We notice that the impugned order has been passed merely in default of the appellant but not on merits. Learned
CIT(A) was required to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of learned
CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass speaking order.
We pass the order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Impugned order dated 21.08.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced in open court on 17.01.2025. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 17/01/2025
Anandi Nambi, Steno
Copy of the Order forwarded to:

BY ORDER,

(Asstt.