MOURYA ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

Now coming to the merits of appeal, as per the facts of the case, the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Iron 7 Steel. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 17.11.12 declaring total income at Nil. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny and after serving statutory notices, order of assessment u/s 143(3) was passed by AO thereby treated income as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A) even in spite of service of notice, therefore Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of the parties dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.

At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee drawn our attention to the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and assessment order passed by AO u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. In this respect, Ld. AR submitted that assessee had moved Mourya Ispat Pvt. Ltd. an application before Ld. CIT(A) on 07.03.17 for seeking adjournment, but the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was decided ex-parte in absence of assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that non-appearance on the part of assessee was unintentional and the assessee has good case of merits, therefore requested that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and directed to hear the appeal afresh by going into the merits of the case.

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 counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) had categorically mentioned in its order that several opportunity of hearing were offered to the assessee but proper compliance has not been committed by the assessee, which shows that the Mourya Ispat Pvt. Ltd. assessee had no interest to pursue or prosecute the appeal. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. AR submitted that assessee was very much interest to pursue or prosecute the appeal but Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the letter of adjournment dated 07.03.17, dismissed the appeal by deciding ex-parte.

In the net result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th March, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (G. S. Pannu) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 09.03.2017 Sr.PS. Dhananjay Mourya Ispat Pvt. Ltd. आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,