KAMLESHKUMAR D DHOLAKIYA,PALSANA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2(3), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 77/SRT/2020Status: HeardITAT Surat14 December 2021AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against a penalty order. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was ex parte due to notices being sent to an incorrect address, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice by sending notices to an incorrect address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

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

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA
Hearing: 14/12/2021Pronounced: 14/12/2021

O R D E R

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

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], Surat in Appeal No. CIT(A), Surat-1/11782 /2018-19 dated 05.02.2020, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 28.09.2016.

2.

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 submits that during appellate proceedings the ld. CIT(A) has sent notices for hearing on wrong address, therefore, notices for hearings could not serve on assessee. The ld. Counsel pointed out that in address; the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned “Vododara” instead of “Kadodara”, therefore notices could not serve on assessee and as a result the assessee could not plead his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel

Assessment Year. 2008-09 Kamleshkumar D Dholakiya prays that an another opportunity to represent the case before first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.

3.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and 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.

4.

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

Order is pronounced on 14/12/2021 by placing result on notice board.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →