APEEKAY CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite affording various opportunities, made no submissions/documents in support of its appeal and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal filed by the Assessee as ex-parte and dismissed the same.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. The conduct of the Assessee, as it appears from the impugned order as in spite of sending various notices the Assessee made no compliance, seems to be non-compliant and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality as the Ld. Commissioner did not decide the appeal filed by the Assessee on appeal merit but dismissed the same in limine for want of submissions/documents, hence, for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its case. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly.