INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, both dated 01.02.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. Besides challenging the issue on merits, the assessee has mainly challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) by raising a specific ground in both the appeals.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.11.2013 admitting loss of ₹.49,75,63,205/-. The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. Similarly, against the loss return filed by the assessee on 30.11.2015 for the assessment year 2015-16, after considering the details filed against statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2013-14 and for the assessment year 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Act were completed by assessing income of the assessee at ₹.46,73,76,139/- after making various additions for both the assessment years. On appeal, since there was no response from assessee against posting the appeal for hearing on various dates, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the assessment orders.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appellate authority has not given any detailed observations on the grounds raised by the assessee and prayed for directing the ld. CIT(A) to pass speaking order by adjudicating the issues on merits by giving one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case against various addition(s).

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against various addition(s) made in the assessment order(s), the assessee preferred further appeal before the appellate authority. Since there was no response from assessee against posting the appeals for hearing on various occasions, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals by confirming the additions. Further, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits based on the materials available on record. Under these circumstances, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with law by giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.