SHRI SANKETKUMAR D. VASHI,NA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 760/SRT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 May 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was erroneous and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to present their case, violating natural justice principles.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. MEENA

For Appellant: Shri Dhairya Vora – CA
Hearing: 01.05.2019Pronounced: 01.05.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 759 & 760/SRT/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2011-12 Shri Sankatkumar D.Vashi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Post Mangkpur, Vashi Street, Tal. Ward-5, Navsari. Gandevi, Navsari. [PAN: AHVPV 1793 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Dhairya Vora – CA Department by Smt.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR.

Date of Hearing 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement 01.05.2019

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Valsad pertaining to assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. Therefore, he requested that the impugned order may be cancelled and the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

Ld. Sr. DR. did not raise any serious objection on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records as well as the relevant provisions of law. We are of the view that there is no doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order, which in our opinion is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an erroneous approach. After reading Section 250(6) of the Act, we are also of the considered view that Assessee’s case should be decided on merits, which the Ld. CIT(A) has not done. However, it is a settled law that even an administrative order has to be speaking one. In this regard, we draw support from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case M/s Sahara India (Farms) Vs. CIT & Anr. in [2008] 300 ITR 403 wherein, it has been held that even “an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice”.

5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee is directed through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 26.06.2019 at 10.00 AM for hearing and did not take any unnecessary adjournment. Since the date of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) has already been informed, there is no need to send the notice to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the both Appeals of the Assessee for A.Yrs.2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner.

Order pronounced on 01-05-2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (O.P. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 01/05/2019 “GANGADHAR” Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR / / TRUE COPY / / Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Surat

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →