Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a private limited company engaged in brokerage, had its case reopened under Section 147 for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer determined a higher total income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-appearance. The same facts and issues applied to both assessment years.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the totality of facts and with the consent of the DR, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to non-appearance, and whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 27.02.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals as per respective grounds of appeal emanate from records, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
& 2071/PUN/2025 3. There is delay in filing of both the appeals. 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 appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals.
A.Y 2013-14 : 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business activities as a Broker & is a member of Multi Commodity Exchange MCX, National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. (NCDEX) and also registered with National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL) & has furnished its return of income on 26.09.2013 for the period under consideration by declaring an income of Rs.24,08,192/-. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 after obtaining prior approval of the appropriate authority. Statutory notices u/s 148 and subsequently u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee. In the absence of any correct and supporting details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 2071/PUN/2025 r.w.s. 144B of the Act & determined total income at Rs.1,75,61,138/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.24,08,192/-.
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 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was furnished despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. DR.
We have heard Ld. DR and perused statement of facts and grounds of appeal and also 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In this regard, from perusal of statements of facts & grounds of appeal, we find that earlier CA Rajendra Shah was looking after the income tax matters of the & 2071/PUN/2025 assessee and due to prolonged illness he could not appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and ultimately he expired on 15.03.2025. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the case as well as with the consent of Ld. DR, 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 the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/submission, if any, to substantiate the grounds of appeal
without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in A.Y. 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes.
A.Y. 2014-15 : 10. Since the facts and issues involved in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 are identical to the facts of