KAMDHENU FOODS,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD 1 SANGLI, SANGLI

This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 15.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in absence of any proper response by the assessee, ld.CIT(A) framed exparte order confirming the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer. She requested that matter may please be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and the assessee will file all the details along with written submissions before ld.CIT(A). Ld. Departmental raised no objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A).

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of export of Grapes by purchasing them from farmers. Case of the assessee for A.Y. 2016-17 selected for scrutiny for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act and assessment framed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act on 30.04.2022 making addition of Rs.5,96,320/- to the returned income of Rs.20,06,389/-. Assessee failed to get any relief in the appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority as it failed to give any response to the notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A). Therefore, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal applying the decision of Coordinate Bench, Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT reported in (1997) 223 ITR 480.

I have given my thoughtful consideration and unable to persuade to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities. Considering the fact that assessee could not substantiate its case by any representation adducing cogent evidences, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal and in all fairness the issues raised on merits requires to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to say that ld.CIT(A) shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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