MUKESH BABULA SAINI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 04.12.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 23.12.2022.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Mukesh Babulal Saini vs. ITO Act. The AO noted that the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard through VC scheduled to meet natural justice on 21.12.2022 and after that the VC was concluded. On appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merit in accordance with provisions of Section 250 of the Act. Therefore ld. counsel contended that since the order passed by the Assessing Officer is also under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the Assessing Officer has not examined the basic facts of the assessee’s case, therefore the ld. counsel prays the Bench that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, Learned Sr. Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment stage as well as during the appellate proceedings; therefore, appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard both the parties. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250 of the Act. We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. We 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, we 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 Mukesh Babulal Saini vs. ITO forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

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