SONAL RAKESH MEHTA,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, VALSAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 678/SRT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 September 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte and non-speaking order, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to a family emergency, resulting in an ex parte order. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Violation of the principle of natural justice due to an ex parte order and lack of a speaking order by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURATBENCH

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA
For Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22/09/2021Pronounced: 24/09/2021

Appellant by : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Revenue by : Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22/09/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad in Appeal No. CIT(A)/VLS/507/16-17/665, dated 12.07.2018, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 29.12.2016.

2.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the 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. The ld. Counsel submits that assessee’s father in law was seriously ill, therefore he could not attend the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and as a result the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.

Assessment Year.2014-15 Sonal Rakesh Mehta 3. Learned DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A).

4.

We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

5.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. 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.

6.

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

Order is pronounced at the time of hearing of appeal on 24/09/2021 in the Virtual Court of hearing.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →