What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee could not receive hearing notices due to a change of address. The assessee argued a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

Nitaben Jayeshkumar Kalathiya vs DCIT | ITAT Surat 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Pinaz Bhagat, CA

Hearing: 29/12/2021Pronounced: 31/12/2021

O R D E R

PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], in Appeal No. CAS/4/119/2016-17 dated 06.12.2017, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 12.09.2016.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel stated that due to change of address assessee could not receive notice of hearing during appellate proceedings, hence, assessee could not plead his case before ld. CIT(A). Therefore, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be granted to the assessee.

Assessment Year. 2014-15 Nitaben J. Kalathiya 3. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced on 31/12/2021 by placing result on notice board.

NITABEN JAYESHKUMAR KALATHIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments