M/S. SHREE ADINATH EPC VENTURES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP. CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, dated 17.11.2023.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 04 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation

The brief facts are that, the assessee M/s. Shree Adinath EPC Ventures Pvt Ltd., engaged in the business of construction allied and ancillary activities, filed its original return of income for the assessment year 02-11-2017, declaring total income of Rs.29,10,730/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued, calling for requisite details. In response, the assessee filed submissions and documents through e-proceeding. The ld.AO verified the e-filings and made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs.43,28,927/- and difference in Form 26AS at Rs. 4,58,53,944/- and concluded the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the :-3-: ITA. No: 1628/Chny/2023 Act on 30.12.2019. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions made by the assessee held that, the assessee has not effectively pursued the appellate proceedings and failed to respond to various notices issued. The ld.CIT(A) also relied upon the following judgments: (i) CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya reported ar 118 ITR 461 (ii) M/s. Chemipol vs Union of India (Central Excise Appeal No 62 of 2009) Mumbai HC (iii) Dr. P. NallaThampy vs Shankar [1994] (supp) SCC 63 (SC) (iv) Whirlpool of India Ltd vs DCIT in ITR No. 2006/Del/2011, ITAT Delhi (v) CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd in of 2009 Delhi HC

The ld. CIT(A) relying on above decisions held that inspite of sufficient opportunities, the appellant did not responded and submitted any reply. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

Per contra, the ld. DR has opposed the plea of assessee to remit back the case to the ld. CIT(A) as the ld. DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that assessee is engaged in the business of construction allied and ancillary activities and due to non-participation before the CIT(A) by the assessee and hence, the exparte order has been passed by the First Appellate Authority. The plea of the assessee was that the non-appearance/participation was not deliberate and the ld. AR undertakes to appear before the authorities, provided an opportunity is given. Since, exparte order has been passed, we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the ld. CIT(A), since there is violation of natural justice and non-compliance of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act and direct the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say,