PRAKASHBHAI MADHAVJIBHAI THUMMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WD-3 (1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

At the outset itself, 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 notices were not properly served to the assessee during the assessment proceeding, as well as during appellate proceedings. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that now assessee wants to submit some additional documents and evidences, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR for the revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, therefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non-compliance attitude.

We 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. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/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, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the lower authorities. Considering the above facts, 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. On account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee a cost of Rs. 5000/- is imposed on the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met, if the Assessing Officer re- adjudicates the entire issue afresh subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the “Prime Minister Relief Fund” within 3 weeks from receipt of this order. If the assessee makes default in making the payment of cost then the consequential proceedings would be deemed, as vacation of our instant remand order. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant and diligent and to furnish all the details and explanations as needed by the Assessing Officer by not seeking adjournment without valid reasons. With these directions, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.