ACESTAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The assessee raised 2 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A)

The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate submits that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment order under 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] having no assistance from the assessee. The Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee by adopting net profit at 8%. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee. The ld. AR further submits that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with costs for fresh consideration as the assessee is ready to place on record every detail in support of its claim.

The ld. DR Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT, vehemently opposed the same and argued that the Assessing officer already adopted net profit ratio and determined the income of the assessee. The assessee did not furnish anything rebutting the net profit ratio before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR drew our attention to page 2 of the assessment order and page 6 of the impugned order. The ld. DR further submits that if this Tribunal afford an opportunity to the assessee in remanding

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note that admittedly, there was no representation before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) by applying Multiplan India Ltd., confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, which clearly establishes that there was no opportunity for the assessee before the authorities below. Further, the Assessing Officer considered the details as on record and determined the total income by adopting net profit ratio at 8%. We find no past history of net profit ratio brought on record before the ld. CIT(A) nor this Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the opinion to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A), but, however, the ld. AR prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to bear the cost, if this Tribunal remands it to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld. AR, facts and circumstances of the case, the cost of ₹.50,000/- as requested by the ld. DR is excessive, therefore, in our opinion that ₹.25,000/- being reasonable. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh by considering the submissions as may be filed by the assessee subject to the condition 4 & S.A. No.37/Chny/25 of payment of ₹.25,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the Assessing Officer shall satisfy the payment of cost. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Stay Application filed by the assessee in S.A. No. 37/Chny/2025, was also heard along with the main appeal. Since we have adjudicated the main appeal and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issues on merits after considering the submissions of the assessee, the stay petition filed by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.