KUMBHI KASARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

The above six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the exparte orders of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short CIT(A)/NFAC]. For the sake of convenience, all the above six appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. the assessee has challenged the exparte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.7,18,16,466/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In the remaining appeals, the assessee has challenged the exparte orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the disallowance of Sugarcane purchase price and addition on account of sale of Sugar to Members at Concessional rates, the details of which are as under :

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that inadvertently, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the issues decided against the assessee are now covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. However, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the issue on merit as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A)/NFAC.

The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand, strongly objected to the above arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. He submitted that despite number of opportunities granted by the CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee did not make any submission for which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was constrained to pass the exparte order.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite three opportunities granted by the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee did not make any submission for which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was constrained to pass the exparte order. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and has not decided the issue on merit. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not followed the provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submission on the date of hearing without seeking any adjourning under any pretext failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in to 1456/PUN/2024. Following similar reasoning, the grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes. is concerned, the same relates to the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.7,18,16,466/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Here also, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution but has not decided the appeal on merit. Following our observations in the preceding paragraphs, we restore the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed.