M/S MY HOME DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing, violating the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration after allowing a proper hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee contended that documents relied upon by the AO were not provided, and they were not given a chance to present their case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O. P. MEENA
Page 1 of 3 My Home Developers Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat/I.T.A. No.163/SRT/2017/A.Y.2013-14
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.163/SRT/2017 : Assessment Year: 2013-14 My Home Developers, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1 Ornate House, Near Althan, Bamroli Circle-2(3), Surat. Bridge, Althan, Surat 394 213. [PAN: AAOFM 5336 K] Appellant Respondent
Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Smt. Anupama Singla, Sr.DR Date of hearing 30.04.2019 Date of pronouncement 30.04.2019
ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned 1. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Surat [in short CIT (A)] dated 28.08.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
The assessee has taken the grounds of appeal against the confirmation of 2. disallowance of Rs.25,98,219 on account of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) of the Act and passing order ex-parte without giving opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that no proper 3. opportunity of hearing afforded to the assessee. The ld. CIT (A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. The documents relied by the AO were not made available to assessee. The Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal be restored to the
Page 2 of 3 My Home Developers Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat/I.T.A. No.163/SRT/2017/A.Y.2013-14
file of ld. CIT (A) with a direction that proper opportunity of being heard may be allowed to the assessee.
The Ld. Senior D.R. relied on the orders of the authorities below, however, has no 4. objection if the entire issue is set-aside to CIT (A).
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that the ld. CIT(A) 5. has simply dismissed the appeal for non-appearance by the assessee on various dates by applying case law of B.N. Bhattachargee & another (118 ITR 461) . We find that the ld. CIT (A) has not allowed proper opportunity of being heard. The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of natural justice. The expression “audi alteram partem” implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized society. The right to notice, right to present case and evidence, right to rebut adverse evidence, right to cross examination, right to legal representation, disclosure of evidence to party, report of enquiry to be shown to the other party and reasoned decisions or speaking orders. We took this guidance for right of hearing, from the ratio as is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that rule of fair hearing is necessary before passing any order. We find that it is pre-decision hearing standard of norm of rule of audi alteram partem. We find that in this instant case, the assessee was not given proper hearing. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee must be given one more opportunity of hearing and to represent his case. Therefore, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 28 of Tribunal Rules, we restore this appeal to the file of Ld. CIT (A) for reconsideration all grounds of appeal after allowing proper opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. Nevertheless, to mention that the assessee will personally or through his authorized representative will appear before the ld. CIT (A) on 26.06.2019 at 10.00 AM for which no notice will be issued to him and make his submissions or comply with hearing before CIT (A) asper dated of hearing that
Page 3 of 3 My Home Developers Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat/I.T.A. No.163/SRT/2017/A.Y.2013-14
may be granted to the assessee . We make it clear that non attendance will of the assessee before CIT (A) will entail confirmation of the impugned addition made by the AO. The assessee will file necessary evidences on which he wants to rely upon.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.04.2019. 7.
Sd/- Sd/- (H.S.SIDHU) (O.P.MEENA) (�याियकसद�यतथा/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखासद�यकेसम� /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) सुरत/ Surat, �दनांक Dated: 30th April , 2019/S.Gangadhara Rao, Sr.PS Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order / / TRUE COPY / / Assistant Registrar, Surat
More judgments on Section 80IB(10)
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Constructions, ThaneITA 8234/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- ACIT-24(1), Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8043/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8042/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8209/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2010-11
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026