THYROCARE BIOTECH P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

The dispute in the present appeal is confined to disallowance of expenses amounting to ` 8,44,710.

The assessee company filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 27th September 2013, declaring loss of 2 M/s. Thyrocare Biotech Pvt. Ltd. ` 47,01,630. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer for verifying the expenditure debited to the Profit & Loss account called upon the assessee to furnish necessary details. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that expenditure to the tune of ` 8,44,710, on account of depreciation and interest cannot be allowed as the assessee was in the process of setting up of its business. Being aggrieved of such disallowance assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.

As it appears from record, due to non–appearance of the assessee on the date fixed for hearing, learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed off the appeal ex–parte by dismissing it in limine. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

The learned Authorised Representative by furnishing a sworn affidavit of a director of the company submitted that the non– appearance before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was due to the fact that hearing notices were served at the old address, hence, assessee was not aware of the date of hearing. She submitted, the non–appearance before the first appellate authority was neither deliberate nor willful. Therefore, she submitted, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its case before the first appellate authority.

We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed off assessee’s appeal ex–parte due to non–appearance. It has been explained before us by the learned Authorised Representative that due to change of address the notices were not received by the assessee. Hence, it could not appear before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, it is noticed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of assessee’s appeal ex–parte has dismissed it in limine without deciding on merit. This, in our view, is not correct as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is duty bound to decide the appeal on merit even in the absence of the assessee. Be that as it may, considering the request of the learned Authorised Representative for one more opportunity to be given to the assessee to represent its case before the first appellate authority, we are inclined to restore the issue to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we must observe, assessee on its part should be more careful and diligent in pursuing its appeal. Therefore, we direct the assessee to furnish before the learned Commissioner

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.07.2018