NEPTUNE BUILDCON LLP,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(3)), VADODARA

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A. O. in the addition of an amount Rs. 58,57,259/- u/s. 28(iv) r.w.s. 41(2)(b)(i) r.w.s. 2(31)(iv) r.w. Sub-section (23)(i) of the Act, being the amount of loss incurred by the Company, prior to conversion to LLP, adjusted against the balance of Unsecured Loans of the shareholders of the Company. The addition of Rs. 58,57,259/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in holding that the appellant has not complied with the conditions stipulated in section 72A and thereby denying the claim of carry forward of losses of Rs. 58,57,259/-. The Ld. AO be directed to allow the claim of carry forward of loss of Rs. 58,57,259/- as claimed.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A. O. in treating the amount of business loss of Rs. 78,512/- as excess amount of carried forward without appreciating the material available on record. The addition thus, made of Rs. 78,512/- is bad in law and in facts, is prayed to be deleted.

Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained Facts of the Case:

The assessee- company underwent a conversion into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) during the assessment year under consideration. It is engaged in the business of real estate who filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 28-11-2014 declaring NIL income after setting off Asst. Year : 2014-15

The Assessing Officer, after issuing notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, completed the scrutiny after making following additions:

It is observed that only one notice on 22-02-2021 was issued to the assessee during this period, which was not complied with, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld.CIT(A), without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Asst. Year : 2014-15

The Ld.Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee argued that the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who was dismissed without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter may be set aside to the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the facts, the Ld.Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to that.

We have heard the contentions of both the parties. It is noted that the assessee has specifically raised the ground that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte, without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, especially during the challenging circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, has extended the period of limitation for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings due to the pandemic. In light of this, the principles of natural justice demand that the assessee be afforded a fair opportunity to present its case.

Considering the extraordinary situation arising from the COVID-19 Asst. Year : 2014-15

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध , आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.