CANARA BANK, NABHA,NABHA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 38 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with

We have considered the reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 4. The Id. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 5. The grounds raised by the Assessee are as under: 1. Ld. CIT)A) has erred in passing the said order in contravention of the provisions of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without providing a fair opportunity of being heard, thereby contravening the principles of natural justice.

At the very outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving the sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard and to represent the case of the Assessee before him thereby contravening the principles of natural justice. It has further been submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to decide the case on merit. Accordingly, a prayer was made to quash / set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A).

Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee along with findings given by the authorities below in their respective orders. We find that though numerous grounds have been raised by the Assessee but the foremost grievance of the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving the sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. From the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) though has provided opportunities to the Assessee of being heard by issuing of notices but in any case, CIT(A) is supposed to pass order on merit on the basis of material available on record. That has not been done in this case. So, keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are of the considered view that an opportunity should be afforded to the Assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).

In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also directed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when called for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay in the hearing of the appeal. 10. In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.