VINTA LABORATORIES PVT LTD,VISHAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

That I hereby declare and verify that the whatever stated as above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false.

On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of one (1) day. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of one (1) day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, a company, filed its return of income for A.Y.2021–22 declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] issued several statutory notices and communications to the assessee including notices under section 142(1) and multiple show-cause notices under section 144 of the Act. In response to the said notice assessee neither complied with the notice nor submitted the information called for. Considering the non-compliances by the assessee, Ld. AO framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.1,23,31,092/- being 10% of total expenses i.e., Rs.12,33,10,917/- under section 37 of the Act.

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: -

At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Ld.AR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly communicated notices to the old e-mail ID and not to the new e-mail ID though the portal was updated with the new e-mail ID, consequent to change in the management. Further, Ld.AR of the assessee also contended that the notice dated 11.11.2022 sent by Ld. AO through speed post was also not received by the assessee. Ld.AR also further submitted that, even before the Ld.AO, assessee could not appear and respond to the notices issued by the Ld.AO. He therefore prayed for remitting the matter back to the file of Page. No 4

Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly objected to the plea of the Ld.AR and vehemently argued that the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has provided ample opportunities to the assessee as detailed in their respective orders. However, assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities. She therefore pleaded that the no further opportunity should be granted and prayed of upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not complied with the notices before Ld. AO and has also not responded to the various notices issued to the assessee as detailed in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), due to the reason that it was communicated to the wrong e-mail ID. In these circumstances, considering the prayer of the Ld.AR and following principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to provide one more final opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed for furnish relevant documents before Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass order based on Page. No 5

The grounds raised on merits are not adjudicated as the appeal is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

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