UTTAM VALUE STEELS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LLOYDS STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-41, MUMBAI

The present both Appeals filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) – 52, Mumbai dated 22.03.17 for AY 2006-07 & 2011-12. 2 & 4092/Mum/2017 M/s Uttam Value Steels Ltd.

Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this consolidated order.

From the records, we noticed that before Ld. CIT(A) neither the assessee nor the department had put their appearance, therefore Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeals of the case ex-parte by holding that nobody appeared on behalf of assessee, even inspite of service of notice and providing opportunity of hearing. Whereas by filing the present appeals, assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) by alleging that proper opportunity was not granted to the assessee and Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions without considering the material placed on record.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities and submitted that the assessee had intentionally not appeared before Ld. CIT(A) and the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) needs no interference.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as orders 3 & 4092/Mum/2017 M/s Uttam Value Steels Ltd. passed by revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that several opportunities were given to the assessee, but even inspite of that, none appear on behalf of the assessee, consequently, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte by considering the material placed on record.

Now before us, although the assessee has made submissions to challenge the order of Ld. CIT(A). After hearing the parties at length, although we are not convinced with the reasoning put forth by the assessee for non-appearance before Ld. CIT(A) as we are of the view that it is the bounded duty of the assessee or his representative to appear before the authorities on each and every date of hearing and to assist and cooperate the authorities for the early disposal of the case/appeal.

Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the substantial cause of justice, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met only, when we provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for contesting the appeal on merits. In our 4 & 4092/Mum/2017 M/s Uttam Value Steels Ltd. view, if the assessee is allowed to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) then in that eventuality, no prejudice would be caused to the interest of revenue as legitimate taxes due on the assessee’s correct income will be adjudicated. Whereas, if the contrary view is taken then in that eventuality the assessee may be put to great hardship and difficulty. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion, we set aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case and thereafter pass afresh order on all the grounds raised by the assessee. Assessee is also directed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and to cooperate in early disposal of the appeals

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.