RUDRA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD-5 GDHAM, KUTCH

When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly before learned CIT(A) by 13 Months, ( 392 days). The learned Counsel adverted my attention

On merit, 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. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, notices of hearings were not served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and as a result, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. The Ld.CIT(A) also did not condone the delay for 13 months in filing the appeal and assessee’s appeal was dismissed on account of delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee wants to file additional evidences, to prove his claim, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel therefore, contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the finding of the assessing officer.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). I 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. I 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, I 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. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of proceedings in consequence to this order and the assessing officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.

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