K.K. PRESS TOOLS AND COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,SRIPERUMBUDUR vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(3), CHENNAI

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 31.07.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2013-14 against the order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 24.03.2016.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and has filed its return of income on 23.01.2014 for A.Y.2013-14, declaring total income of Rs.8,66,110/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and details called for. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted its reply along with details called for. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee, the AO made a total addition to the tune of Rs.3,89,39,204/- by arriving a total income of Rs.3,98,05,314/- and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.144 of the Act dated 24.03.2016.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 28.12.2016.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 6 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 31.07.2025 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not checked the income tax portal and its email ID during the relevant period and hence the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not submit the written submission and valid evidence before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the first appellant authority to complete the appellate proceedings effectively.

We note that none appeared before us to represent the revenue’s appeal.

We have heard the ld.AR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed order by considering the submissions made by the assessee along with the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

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