RAMAKRISHNA HOUSINGG,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Shri B.Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the assessee, referring to para 3 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that, although the assessee has furnished relevant details including assessment order along with Form No.35, but the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, on the Ramakrishna Housingg ground that a decision on merits cannot be taken in the absence of assessment order and any other details. Therefore, he submitted that to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO /CIT(A) and the assessee is willing to provide necessary details, in support of return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration.

The Ld.DR on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that the assessee is non-cooperative at all stages of proceedings, which is evident from the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee could not adduce any reason as to why there is no representation during the assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. In the absence of any reason, as to why the assessee could not file relevant evidences, there is no reason to provide another opportunity to the assessee and therefore, the order of the authorities should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Upon consideration of para 3 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution, however, did not consider the issue on merits, on the ground that the assessee could not even furnish a copy of the assessment order. But the fact remains that the assessee has filed relevant details, including copy of the assessment order, facts of the case and issues disputed in the appeal along with Form No.35 Ramakrishna Housingg filed before the Ld.CIT(A), which is evident from the acknowledgement receipt of filing of Form No.35 dated 14.08.2024, where the assessee has attached copy of assessment order, financial statements and statement of facts, in support of its appeal. Although the assessee has furnished relevant details, but the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ‘in limine’ for want of prosecution, contrary to settled principles of law that even in case of non-prosecution by the assessee, the appeal should be decided on merits on the basis of material available on record. Since the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the issue on merits, in our considered view, the issue needs to go back to the lower authorities. Since the assessment itself is ex-parte and the assessee has not furnished any details, in our considered view, instead of setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the AO. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to reconsider the issue 'denovo' after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall furnish relevant evidences, in support of its claim and appear before the AO, as and when the AO provides opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case. The assessee is directed to pay a nominal cost of Rs.5,000/- for showing negligence on the part of the assessee to appear before the authorities, when the case was called for discussion and the assessee is directed to pay the cost as directed, to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and produce necessary evidence to the Registry.