M/S MAXOSYS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NANO WEB TECH LIMITED),CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH

We first take up ITA 659/CHD/2018 for adjudication.

At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. However, on considering the material available on record for ground Nos. 1 to 4, it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the hearing considering ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits. The ld. Sr.DR was also heard only on the above mentioned grounds. The specific grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal read as under :

Attention of the Sr.DR was invited to order dated 26.06.2015 of the AO passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 wherein a perusal of paras 2 to 3.2 of the order shows that the AO has referred to the facts of the case, however, in the following paras 4.1 to 4.5 which runs into 10 pages, there is not a single line or discussion as to what was the response of the assessee to the notices issued. In the absence of any relevant discussion, the ld. DR was unable to refer to the same. It is further borne out from the impugned order that the assessee was represented by a counsel. The grounds raised by the assessee have been reproduced and they have been decided relying upon the observations of the AO. In the absence of any discussion on the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee, the order passed cannot be said to be a speaking order in accordance with law, specially where the assessee's submissions before the AO have not been addressed in the order itself. The order of the CIT(A) cannot be said to fulfill the statutory mandate of sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961. Thus, holding that the impugned order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case does not meet the statutory requirements, it is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law addressing the submissions of the assessee and giving a reasoned finding for accepting or rejecting these as it may be as in the absence of relevant discussion the correctness of the conclusions drawn cannot be adjudicated upon. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the assessee.

Since the facts in ITA 660/2018 were stated to be identical, accordingly, with similar observations, the order is also set aside to the file of CIT(A).

ITA 661/CHD/2018 is a penalty proceeding in 2012-13 assessment year. Since the issues in the quantum appeal have been restored back to the file of the CIT(A), the penalty proceedings are also restored back with identical directions to be decided after making the order in quantum A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 proceedings available to the assessee. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself.

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