FLAT WORLD PROCESSES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(3)(3), MUMBAI

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application

Brief facts are, the assessee, a resident company, is stated to be engaged in the business of network service center and service provider to businesses. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 1st October 2014, declaring loss of ` 10,06,995. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the allowability of ` 1,10,24,562, and ` 2,03,26,243, debited to the Profit & Loss Account towards provisions of diminution of investment and investment written off respectively. As observed by the Assessing Officer, in response to the show cause notice issued, the assessee vide letter dated 26th November 2016, filed a revised computation disallowing provisions of diminution of investment and investments written–off. Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment disallowing the amounts of ` 1,10,24,562 and ` 2,03,26,243. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As it appears from the facts on record, before the Assessing Officer the assessee had filed revised computation of income disallowing provisions for diminution of investment and investment written–off. Probably, on the basis of such revised computation of income, the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment by disallowing the aforesaid two deductions claimed by the assessee in the return of income. However, before the first appellate authority the assessee had specifically challenged the aforesaid disallowances. As it appears from the order of the first appellate authority, he has decided the appeal ex–parte in the absence of the assessee. It is not forthcoming from the order of the first appellate authority whether any opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the assessee or not. Though, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to a written submission filed by the assessee, however, nothing much could be made out from the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) whether he has specifically dealt with the submissions. In our view, considering the fact that the appeal has been decided ex–parte, the assessee should be provided proper opportunity of hearing as regards the issues raised before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to his

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2020