METTACO ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(2), MUMBAI

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mettaco Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ITO–7(2)(2) बनाम/ Embassy Centre Aaykar Bhawan Jamnalal Road, Nariman Point M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AALCM-7370-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 28/01/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-13/ITO-7(2)(2)/268/2015-16 dated 12/01/2017 on certain grounds of appeal

2. None appeared for assessee at the time of hearing. The Ld. DR drew attention to the fact that the assessee failed to make any 2 Mettaco Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year :2010-11 representation either before Ld. AO or before Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

3. Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident corporate assessee was subjected to reassessment proceedings for year under consideration vide order dated 26/12/2013. The assessment was framed on best judgement basis since the assessee failed to make any representation before Ld. AO. Consequently, the income was determined at Rs.109.18 Lacs.

4. Although the assessee preferred further appeal before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 12/01/2017, however, it again failed to make effective representation. Consequently, the quantum assessment order was confirmed. Aggrieved the assessee is under further appeal before us. The Ld. DR has drawn attention to the fact that address mentioned on Form 36 differ from address mentioned in the quantum assessment order as well as impugned order and therefore, prima-facie, the address of the assessee has changed.

5. Upon due consideration, we find that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. However, keeping in the mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter on the basis of material on record.