MEGHMANI DYES AND INTERMEDIATES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

“1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in Law and on facts in dismissing the appeal for Non-Compliance without considering Written Submission filed by the appellant in I.T. Portal on 13/01/2023 within time limit mentioned in the appeal notice. The appeal order is passed on 18/01/2023. 2. The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act even though it is not a mistake apparent from the record.

Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2–

“3. The aforesaid notice also remains uncomplied with. As can be seen from the above details, the appellant has been provided reasonable number of opportunities but appellant has chosen not to avail any of these. No written submission has been made by the appellant in support of the grounds taken during the appeal. It appears that the appellant is not keen to pursue the appeal and no material/argument has been brought on record by the appellant against the order of the AO and in support of the grounds taken in appeal.

Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3–

3.1 Reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 4619 (SC), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of persuasion of appeal has stated that- “Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it.” 3.2 The Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non-persuasion of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. 3.3 In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO’s order and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed.” 4.

5. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not taken into consideration the written submissions filed by the assessee with the office of Ld. CIT(A). The Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that notice under Section 250 of the Act was issued by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 06.01.2023, fixing the date of hearing for 13.01.2023. In response, to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed response, for which due acknowledgement was issued by the Income Tax Department dated 13.01.2023. However, while passing the appellate order dated 18.01.2023, the response filed by the assessee was not considered and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte without taking into record the written submissions filed by the assessee.

6. On going through the records of the case, we observe that the assessee had filed written submissions in response to notice issued by Ld. CIT(A) which were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the appellate order. Further, the Counsel for the assessee also submitted before us that similar claim of the assessee has been allowed by the Department in Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 4– the succeeding assessment year as well. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, the case is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and taking into consideration the written submissions filed by the assessee, in this regard.