RKW COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated Nil.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-

2 ITA no.869 /MUM/2020 RKW Communication Pvt. Ltd. tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal in default of the assessee. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the appellant e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee submitted the details called for through its CA. After taking assessee’s submissions into consideration, learned assessing officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 17,42,330/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 3. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of interest expenses of Rs. 16,20,000/- by rejecting assessee’s claim of indexation benefit u/s. 48 of the Act. 4. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing. 5. We have perused the records and heard learned representative for the Revenue as none responded for the assessee. 6. Learned DR has supported impugned order. 7. Perusal of impugned order shows that the appellant assessee did not respond to the various opportunities granted by the first appellate authority on 22.05.2019, 31.05.2019,

3 ITA no.869 /MUM/2020 RKW Communication Pvt. Ltd. 10.06.2019, 17.06.2019, 21.06.2019, 30.08.2019 and 04.10.2019. We notice that the impugned order is not supported with reasons. There is no due or proper application of mind or any critical analysis or objective consideration in the matter. It is well settled in law that the reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass speaking order afresh. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in terms of what is noted hereinabove. Impugned order is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 30.09.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 30/09/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno

4 ITA no.869 /MUM/2020 RKW Communication Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai