M/S HIGHWAY AUTO CENTRE,SURAT vs. DY.CIT, CIRCLE2(2), SURAT, SURAT

At the outset itself, the ld.Counsel submits that notice for hearing was not served on the assessee, therefore assessee could not plead his case before the ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee filed copy of track records of postal article sent vide speed post registration no.EG474235239IN, at page no.10 of PB. The Ld.Counsel by referring the contents of track record submits that post dt.07.08.218 was dispatched on 13.08.2018 and it was served on the assessee on 27.08.2018. The ld.CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 24.08.2018. Thus, ld.CIT(A) passed the order without recording his satisfaction, that the notice dated 07.08.2018, posted on 13.08.2018 was served on the assessee or not. Hence, the A.Y. 2014-15 M/s.Highway Auto Centre, Surat.

On the other hand, the ld.Departmental Representative(Sr.DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that notice of hearing could not served on the assessee during the appellate proceedings, therefore assessee could not appear before the ld.CIT(A). Apart from this, the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and not in accordance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as follows “The order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision”. Therefore, we note that the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the assessee’s issue based on the assessment records and material available before him, hence it is violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, we deem it fit to set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

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