RAMESH KUMAR JAIN,ASTHA vs. THE ITO, SEHORE

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order dated 20.02.2023 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y.2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.29,00,236/- made by estimating the gross profit @3.68% without appreciating the fact that in this line of trade there is no such margin. Thus, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is unjust, unfair and deserves to be deleted.

Ramesh Kumar Jain Page 2 of 4 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.”

3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

“7.2 As mentioned in Para 6 of this appeal order, this office has issued several letters/notices to file written submission. However, appellant has not filed any written submissions. The letters were issued through ITBA System at the e-mail ID provided in ITBA System. From the above conduct of the appellant, it is evident that the appellant is no more interested in pursuing the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS B.N. Bhattacharjee and others [1979] 10 CTR 354 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal, means effectively pursuing it. The Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT [1979] 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) dismissed the reference filed at the instance of the assessee for default and for not taking necessary steps. Considering the conduct of the appellant in the present circumstance, I am of the view that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. This view has been affirmed by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Amitkumar H. Shah Vs. ACIT in vide their order dated 31.12.2013, wherein following the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. Page 2 of 4

Ramesh Kumar Jain Page 3 of 4 7.3 xxxxxx 7.4 xxxxxx 7.5 xxxxxxx 7.6 In its decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No. 798 of 2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee for his negligence. When the assessee is non-cooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-genuineness.”

4.1 Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2023