MOTO DRIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-7, PUNE, PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of automobile parts and servicing of vehicles and has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee and the assessee was asked to explain the credit entries of Rs.56,56,68,724/- appearing in his bank accounts including the cash deposited during demonetization period. The assessee failed to explain anything in this regard however the Assessing Officer found that audit report in Form 3CB has been furnished by the assessee wherein total turnover of Rs.32,99,00,019/- is shown. In the absence of any reply from assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act & determined total income at Rs.7,35,36,934/- by applying net profit rate of 13% on gross credit entries of Rs.56,56,68,724/- appearing in the bank accounts.

Being aggrieved with the above action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. In this regard, we find that in the light of section 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to decide each and every ground raised by the assessee before him. However, in the instant case, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided any of the ground raised by the assessee and simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case as well as with the consent of both the parties, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to