PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKA SHAKARI SAMITI CHATHOLI,CHATHOLI SIRONJ vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before him, despite the fact that assessee has explained the sufficient cause for the delay in the statement of facts itself. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that when the proceedings were going on before the Ld. CIT(A), at that point of time Counsel of assessee was died. For that assessee has produced the death certificate. Because of the death of the assessee’s counsel/advocate the proceedings before the Ld. AO remains unattended. Hence, Ld. Counsel submitted that delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, as the assessee wants to submit more documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer to prove his claim.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the minor delay of 52 days is condoned and matter is restored back to the file of AO.

We have heard, both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that the delay has resulted in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) due to death of Counsel/advocate of the assessee therefore I note that assessee has explained the sufficient cause to condone this minor delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and the reasons explained by the assessee, constitute sufficient cause to condone such delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we condone the delay before Ld. CIT(A).

Since, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and we have noted that assessee wants to submit additional documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer to prove his claim therefore Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

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 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, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. We hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its 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 assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

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