IGT SOLUTIONS P.LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI

Brief facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing information technology Software Solutions and BPO Services to travel industry. For the assessment year 2012-13, they have filed their return of income on 26.11.2012 declaring loss at Rs.1,92,68,836/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act” for short) wascomplete by order dated 11.03.2016 accepting the loss stated by the assessee at

Learned CIT(A), however, in the impugned order observed that inspite of four notices issued to the assessee on 29.05.2017, 30.08.2017 and 13.09.2017, the assessee did not enter appearance and pursued the matter and therefore, opining that the assessee had no wish to pursue the appeal, he dismissed the same.

Assessee, therefore, filed this appeal on the grounds that the impugned order passed in this case is against the principles of Natural Justice; that observation of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee did not comply with the notices and did not file any submissions is far from truth; and that the non-adjudication of issues on merits by the CIT(A) is erroneous.

When the matter is called today for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee by registered post to the address furnished in Form No.36. When the notice is sent to proper address of the assessee as provided by them in Form No.36 through Registered mail with postage prepaid, if the assessee was to be found therein, the notice would have been served. If for any reason the assessee is absent temporarily, it is for the assessee to make arrange with The Postal Department either to deliver it to some other person, or to re-direct it to an address where the assessee could be found or to detain the mail till the assessee comes back and claims the same. Even if the assessee shifts from that place, it is for the assessee to notify the new address either to the Revenue or to the Tribunal or to the Postal

It is the submission of the Ld. DR that when the assessee does not show any interest in pursuing the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) had no option but to deal with the same in the absence of the assessee; and that the assessee cannot complain for the consequences of its own conduct.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made before us. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. CIT(A) did not refer to any merits of the assessee’s claim but merely because of the absence of the assessee, the appeal was dismissed in limine. We, however, are of the view that the absence of assessee will not deter the first appellate authority from disposing of the appeal on merits. It is as well available to the Ld. CIT(A) to look into the papers that are available on record and appraise the merits of the case to reach a reasonable conclusion determining the just tax liability of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the fact that in the absence of assessee also the papers will speak for themselves. Instead of dismissing the appeal in limini, the Ld. CIT(A) should have taken little more effort and care to delve deeper into the merits of the case and should have recorded the for reasons to dismiss the appeal. This exercise should have been undertaken by the Ld. CIT(A) because being a statutory appellate authority, it is not open for him to dismiss the appeal for default which power is not available to him.

We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the Ld. CIT(A) to look into the matter

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