C. D. INTEGRATED SERVICES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The registry has noted that there is a delay of 382 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee filed its Account’s Manager Notarized Affidavit stating that appeal against the assessment order was filed on 07-12-2018 before Ld. CIT(A)-10, Ahmedabad wherein written submissions dated 14-08-2019, 02-03-2020 and 16-03- 2020 were filed. Then the appeal migrated to NFAC in August 2020 and hearing notices said to have been issued on 14-01-2021 and 29-03-2023 which were not responded by the assessee, thereby NFAC dismissed the appeal vide order dated 13-06-2023. When the Assessing Officer issued penalty notice dated 06-08-2023, the assessee came to know about the exparte appellate order thereby the delay of 382 days in filing the appeal and requested to condone the delay. We are satisfied with the above reason and we hereby condone the delay of 382 days in filing the appeal.

Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-10 called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, but without considering the same as well as the submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed exparte appellate order. Therefore in the interest of justice, the matter be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Per contra Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue has no objection in setting aside the matter back to the file of NFAC for adjudication on merits of the case.

We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts is that the assessee filed its Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2016-17 on 17-10-2016 declaring total income of Rs. 6,83,73,910/-. During the assessment A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 C.D. Integrated Services Ltd. vs. DCIT proceedings, the assessee was requested to provide the commission paid to professional traders above Rs. 5,00,000/- which totals to Rs. 56,51,716/-. On summoning them u/s. 133(6) two persons replied to the queries raised by the A.O., which amounts to Rs.14,23,682/- and remaining persons failed to make any reply. Thereby the Assessing Officer added Rs. 42,28,034/- as unexplained commission expenditure and added to the total income of the assessee.

On appeal before ld. CIT(A), assessee filed a detailed submissions including confirmation letter, Address, PAN, details of commission paid to professional traders with TDS and also the agreements with them. The confirmation letters from the parties confirmed the receipt of the commission amount along with TDS u/s. 194J of the Act. This materials papers which were filed before Ld. CIT(A)-10 were not taken note by any NFAC and dismissed the appeal by giving only two opportunities of hearing. Therefore in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and direct to pass order on merits by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well as to look into the confirmations and other details filed by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.