Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEYAND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Profound Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 410, Galleria Hiranandani Gardens ……………. Appellant Powai, Mumbai 400 076 PAN – AAFCS3746M v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–15(2)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bohra Date of Hearing – 19.12.2019 Date of Order – 30.12.2019
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.
Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21st August 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–24, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2013–14.
When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. Even, there is no 2 Profound Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
application by the assessee seeking adjournment either. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex– parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.
In ground no.1, the assessee has challenged the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in dismissing the appeal in limine in an ex–parte order.
Brief facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th September 2013, declaring total loss of ` 33,38,410. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide order dated 18th March 2016, determining the loss at ` 26,09,700, after making disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. However, due to non–appearance of the assessee on the date fixed for hearing, learned Commissioner (Appeals) in an ex–parte order dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without deciding the issue on merit.
We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused material available on record. As could be seen from Para–2.4 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, he has only referred to the 3 Profound Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
notice dated 15th March 2018, fixing the date of hearing on 20th March 2018, allegedly served online on the assessee. Due to non–appearance of the assessee on the date fixed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed off assessee’s appeal ex–parte. While doing so, he has not decided the issue on merit and has simply dismissed the appeal in limine. In our view, the aforesaid approach of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. Even if learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose off the appeal ex–parte, he should have decided the issues on merit. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues to his file for deciding afresh and on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to make effective compliance before learned Commissioner (Appeals) by responding to the notice of hearing to be issued by him. With the aforesaid observations, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.12.2019