PUNE E COMMODITES BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. WARD 4(5), PUNE, PUNE

& 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