ADI EDUCATION & KNOWLEDGE CO. PVT. LTD.,THANE vs. D.C.I.T. CIR. - 1, THANE, TH

The dispute in the present appeal is in relation to the addition of an amount of ` 1.25 crore.

Brief facts are, the assessee company is a lead resource provider for various reputed Universities and Institutions in India and abroad. For the assessment year in dispute, the assessee originally filed its return of income on 27th August 2012 declaring income of ` 1,91,31,130. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised returns of income on 29th September 2012, declaring the same income as was shown in the original return of income and again on 6th June 2013, showing income of ` 66,31,130. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed the difference of ` 1.25 crore between the turnover shown in the revised return of income filed on 29th September 2012, and the revised return of income filed on 6th June 2013. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the difference in the turnover as shown in the two revised returns of income, the assessee submitted its explanation explaining the reason for such difference. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed, the reasons shown by the assessee for filing revised return of income was not supported by proper documentary evidence. He observed, there are lots of inconsistencies in the submission made by the assessee. Further, he observed, as per the financial statement though there are no major difference in the expenditure, however, there is huge difference in the turnover. Accordingly, due to th lack of 3 ADI Education & Knowledge Co. P. Ltd. proper explanation by the assessee to explain the difference, he added back an amount of ` 1.25 crore to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before the first appellate authority, however, due to non–appearance of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed off the appeal ex–parte confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The only submission made on behalf of the assessee before us is, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to explain its case before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and reconcile the difference in the turnover.

Having considered rival submissions, we find that though the hearing of appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) was fixed on several occasions as enumerated in Para–2 of the appeal order, however, on none of those occasions the assessee appeared and represented its case. In these circumstances, learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be blamed for disposing off the appeal ex–parte. However, considering the submission of the assessee before us that given an opportunity the assessee would reconcile the difference in the turnover before learned Commissioner (Appeals) with supporting evidence, we are inclined to take a lenient view and in the interest of justice we restore the issues raised in the present appeal to the file of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after due

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.04.2019