M/S EAGLE MOTORS P. LTD.,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed application seeking adjournment or explaining reason for non-appearance before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. We have noted that the appeal has been presented before the Tribunal way back in 11.4.2017 and since institution of the appeal the assessee has been 2 given as many as five opportunities to pursue his appeal before Tribunal. Assessee has also moved applications for adjournment on 11.6.2022 and 23.8.2022. On 25.8.2022 also the assessee’s representative made a written request for adjournment which was also granted. On all the occasions adjournment has been sought seeking time to prepare the case. Since considerable time has elapsed and the assessee it appears is not interested in pursuing his case, therefore, we have no other option but to proceed the matter ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the ld.DR and considering the material available on record.

We have noted from the order of the ld.Pr.CIT that revisionary jurisdiction was exercised by him noting that the assessee had claimed payment of interest to the tune of Rs.3,34,57,684/- to various NBFCs on which no TDS had been deducted and the AO had failed to verify the same. He therefore, was of the view that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Before the ld.Pr.CIT no reply was filed by the assessee, in response to notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and accordingly, the ld.Pr.CIT passed his order holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and directed the AO to make fresh assessment after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee on the same.

As aforementioned, before us also, the assessee was unrepresented. Since the assessee has nothing to say against the charge of the Ld.PCIT of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of allowing the assesses claim of interest amounting to Rs.3,34,57,684/- to various NBFCs without examining and verifying that TDS was deducted on the same, we see no reason to interfere of the order of the ld.Pr.CIT passed under section 263 of the Act.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.