HANSABEN CHHAGANBHAI KAKADIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat dated 30.11.2018.

At the outset itself, the ld.Counsel assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before the 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 stated that during the appellate proceedings notice of hearing was not served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not appear before the ld.CIT(A). Apart from this, the assessee has filed written submissions before the ld.CIT(A), however, the ld.CIT(A) did not consider the written submissions and passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues involved in assessee’s appeal on merit. Therefore, the ld.Counsel 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.

On the other hand, the ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld.Counsel.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that assessee has filed the written submissions during the appellate proceedings, however, ld.CIT(A) did not consider the written submissions of the assessee to adjudicate the issues involved in assessee’s appeal. The assesse has participated in the appellate proceedings and filed an adjournment letter dated 18.09.2018. We note that main grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the written submissions of the assessee to decide the issues ground wise. Therefore, it is evidently clear that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue ground wise based on the material available before him, hence it is violation of principle of natural justice. Thus, 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). The ld.CIT(A) did not pass the order as per the mandate of the provisions 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”. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) did not pass the speaking order, 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 allowed.

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