ATLANTA ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/SRT/2019Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 September 2021AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The issues were not decided ground-wise, and relevant records were not examined.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as the assessee could not represent its case. The assessee had requested an adjournment, but the CIT(A) passed an order without hearing them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice.

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, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

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

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak K.Zaveri, C.A
Hearing: 29/09/2021Pronounced: 07/10/2021

Assessee by : Shri Shaunak K.Zaveri, C.A Respondent by :Mrs. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 29/09/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 3, Surat dated 29.05.2019, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017.

2.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent its 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 had filed the adjournment letter on 28.05.2019 and requested to grant some more time, however, ld CIT(A) has passed the ex-party order without hearing the assessee. Therefore, 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.

3.

The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

4.

We have heard both the parties and 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. We not that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues ground-wise in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee in memo of appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has not examined assessment records and relevant documents, and has not passed any speaking order. Therefore, we are of the view that matter should be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

5.

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, 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 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →