F I AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD 2(2), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वकी, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.657/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14

M/s.F I Auto Components Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd, No.151 & 151, 12th Main Vs. Non Corp Ward11(3), Road, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Chennai. Thirumudivakkam, Chennai- 600044 [PAN-AABCF2142E) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal arises from order vide DIN / order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060194818(1) dated 29.01.2024 of the CIT(Appeal)/NFAC whereby the appeal of the assesse was dismissed on account of inadequate prosecution of appeal by the assesse.

ITA No.657/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:

2.0 At the outset the Ld.AR argued that there existed genuine and sufficient grounds with the assesse which contributed to not making proper representation and submission before the Ld.CIT(A). It was also submitted that the matter be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and that the assesse assures that full compliance shall be made during appellate proceedings. 3.0 The Ld. DR contested the submissions of the assessee arguing that the assesse did not have a justifiable reason for non-compliance and accordingly relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4.0 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of auto components at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Chromepet, Chennai. The appellant is assessed to tax by the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(2). For the impugned assessment year, the appellant filed its return of income on 22.04.2014 and admitted a total income of Rs.48,52,232/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 22.03.2016 by computing the total income at Rs.55,31,9 70/- and raising a demand of Rs. 2,42, 220/ Subsequently the case was reopened by way of a notice issued u/s. 148 and the reassessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147. The assessment order was passed on 18.12.2019 by computing the total income at Rs.3, 02, 66397- and raising a demand of Rs.1, 11,17, 196/-. The appellant was not aware that the assessment order was passed

ITA No.657/Chny/2024 :- 3 -:

against the appellant. The appellant’s bank account was attached by the Assessing Officer and when the appellant reached out to the Assessing Officer in respect of the bank account that was attached, the appellant came to know that assessment order was passed against him. The assesse filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 5.0 The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order mentioned Supra holding that the assesse did not avail the opportunities given by him and proceeded to dismiss the appeal by relying upon judicial pronouncement on the matter. 6.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of facts of the case and material available on records. On perusal of the order it is seen that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non- compliance to his notices and proceeded to confirm the additions made by the AO, the latter order also done ex-parte. The appellant has unequivocally assured that it shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The matter is restored to file of the AO because he is the first authority who has the right to adjudicate on return of income and in this case the said right could not be exercised because

ITA No.657/Chny/2024 :- 4 -:

of non-compliance by the tax payer. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 the matter is restored to the file of the AO for assessment de novo. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO. 7.0 In the result the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 31st May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) Judicial Member Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनांक/Dated: 31st May, 2024. KB/- आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलधर्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Coimbatore / Salem 4. नवभधगीय प्रनिनिनर्/DR 5. गधर्ा फधईल/GF