Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E-COURT,
Before: SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
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) - 2 Guwahati dated 07.01.2019, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the assessing officer under section 271B read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In short ‘the Act’) dated 30.06.2017.
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, as the assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity of being heard.
Learned counsel also took us through ground no. 1 raised by the assessee which read as follows:
2 Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board A.Y: 2014-15 “For that the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Guwahati is not justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant on ex-parte basis vide dated 07.01.2019. Appeal Acknowledgement No. 174044211160817 against the order passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the I.T. Act vide dated 30.06.2017 without providing any opportunity of being heard by the appellant.”
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. The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and order passed by the CIT(A). We note that CIT(A) has not passed the order on merits and the assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity of being heard. We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S.Gill vs The Chief Election Commission 1978 AIR SC 851 held “The dichotomy between administrative and quasi-judicial function vis-à-vis the doctrine of natural justice is presumably obsolescent after Kraipak (A.K. Kraipak vs UOI AIR 1970 SC 150) which makes the water-shed in the application of natural justice to administrative proceedings. The rules of natural justice are rooted in all legal systems and are not any new theology. They are manifested in the twin principles of nemo judex in parte sua (no person shall be a judge in his own case) and audi alterem partem (the right to be heard). It has been pointed out that the aim of natural justice is to secure justice”.
Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity of being heard and 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. 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 and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
3 Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board A.Y: 2014-15 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 17/06/2020.