ALP CONSULTING LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KORAMANGLA

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05/03/2025 impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2018-19.

The Assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however despite of affording two opportunities by the Ld. Commissioner, availed none and eventually made no compliance and therefore the Ld. Commissioner by observing “ that no details were uploaded by the assessee and there is nothing available on record to rebut the assessing officer’s findings on merits and therefore no purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending. It is clear that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal”, affirmed the said disallowance/addition, by dismissing appeal of the Assessee.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset haS submitted that the Ld. Commissioner had issued notices in the month of September of 2023 and 2024, when the erstwhile tax consultant who was handling the case of the Assessee, was busy in audit cases and statutory compliances, which resulted into non- compliances with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner. Non- compliances by the Assessee were neither intentional nor deliberate but because of the previously mentioned reason and therefore it is prayed that lenient view may be taken and one opportunity may be last and final, be afforded to the Assessee to substantiate its claim.

On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee.

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, we observe that the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee qua non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner, prima facie seems to be bonafide and plausible. It is also a fact that the issue involved in the instant case, remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, as the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.

At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated the fact that though the AO in the assessment order noted the fact that the assessee by filing its return of income had declared total income at Rs. 2,67,71,170/- and consequently issued the notice to the Assessee for substantiating the same, however, at last in the computation, considered the income at Rs. 3,23,76,390/- as computed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act and therefore it is prayed that appropriate direction may be given to the AO to rectify such mistake.

We clarify that the assessee would be at liberty to raise this issue as well before the Ld. Commissioner in the remanded proceedings.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner in the above terms.

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