JASHAVANTI SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 12/SRT/2019Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 July 2021AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the ex-parte order violated the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee could not represent their case due to a communication gap with their authorized representative. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case and without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice.

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 Mehul R.Shah - CA
Hearing: 27/07/2021Pronounced: 27/07/2021

O R D E R

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

1.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2011- 12, is directed against the order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat dated 27.09.2018.

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 the ld.CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, is stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. 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. The ld.Counsel explained the reasons of non-appearance before the ld.CIT(A) stating that assessee could not communicate the date of hearing to his Authorised Representative, hence, there was a communication gap between the Authorised Representative and assessee, therefore, assessee could not plead his case before the ld.CIT(A).

A.Y. 2011-12 Jashavanti Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.,

3.

The ld.Departmental Representative(DR) for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld.Counsel.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that assessee has not participated in the appellate proceedings and order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. The ld.CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records and material available before him to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, we note that order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is not a speaking order. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld.CIT(A). Hence, it is a violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the order of 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 assessee is treated as allowed.

5.

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

Order is pronounced at the time of hearing of appeal on 27/07/2021 in the Virtual Court of hearing.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →