Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. B.R. BASKARAN & SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY
PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM:
The instant appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.09.2017 impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Amritsar u/s 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and affirmed the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
2 ITA N0.19/Asr/ 2018 (A. Y: 2012 -13 ) Prabir Food Stuff Factory vs. DCIT 2. It is trite to say that every person has the right to speak and be heard when allegations are being put towards him or her. If no opportunity has been given to the party effected, then it shall amount to violations of the principles of natural justice, which embedded in latin words “Audi Alteram Partem” which means ‘hear the other side’, or ‘no man should be condemned un-heard’ or ‘both the sides must be heard before passing any order’. The principle of Audi Alteram Partem is the basic concept of the principle of natural justice and has not evolved from the constitution but evolved through civilization and mankind and is the concept of common law, which implies fairness, reasonableness, equality and equity. In India, the principles of natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 enshrines that every person should be treated equally. In the landmark case of ‘Maneka Gandhi vs. The Union of India’ (1978 AIR 597), it has been held by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that the law and procedure must be of a fair, just and reasonable kind. The doctrine ensures a fair hearing and fair justice to both the parties. Under this doctrine, both the parties have the right to speak. The aim of this principle is to give an opportunity to the parties to defend themselves. Before the court, both the parties are equal and are entitlement of equal opportunity to represent them. If the order is passed by the authority without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected by it adversely will be invalid and shall be liable to be set aside.
At the outset, it appears from the impugned order that despite several notices, no submission has been filed by the appellant and many times the respective notices were received back ‘undelivered’ by the Ld. CIT(A) and only once Sh. P.S. Aneja, Advocate appeared and requested for
3 ITA N0.19/Asr/ 2018 (A. Y: 2012 -13 ) Prabir Food Stuff Factory vs. DCIT
adjournment on behalf of the assessee. However, from the order it does clear as to what happened thereafter. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte by mentioning the fact that the assessee company has not co-operated and failed to provide/furnish any submission/reply/ evidence/information in support of its claim during the appellate proceedings.
From the order, it does not reflects that the notices of the hearing have ever been served upon the assessee or not and even mode of service has not been specified, therefore it cannot be presumed that proper notices have been served upon the assessee and in spite of receiving notices the assessee did not attend the proceedings nor filed any written submission. From the order impugned it reflects that the principles of natural justice have not been followed, as it is fundamental principle of law that no one can be remain un-heard, therefore in the peculiar facts of circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say while affording proper opportunities of being heard to the assessee.
We also direct the Assessee/Appellant to extend its full co- operation and participation in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when required and in case of default, the assessee shall not be subjected to any leniency.
4 ITA N0.19/Asr/ 2018 (A. Y: 2012 -13 ) Prabir Food Stuff Factory vs. DCIT
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/10/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09/10/2019. /PK/ Ps. Copy forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. Then CIT(Appeals) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. Amritsar 6. Guard File True Copy By Order