BAADER SCHULZ LABORATORIES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI

The above titled appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.03.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2005-06.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee could not present before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without hearing to the assessee. Now assessee

Ld. D.R. objected to it.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that assessee firm is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs and pharmaceuticals. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 31.10.2005 declaring total loss of Rs.1,15,24,260/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 28.11.2005 declaring total loss of Rs.30,38,470/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. We find that the assessee did not remain present before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.