ANILA NARENDRA SANGHANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAMANAGAR, JAMNAGAR

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 634 days in case of assessee`s quantum appeal in in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has also not condoned the delay of 477 days in case of assessee`s penalty appeal in Ld.CIT(A). The learned counsel submitted that assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay in filing these two appeals,despite of the sufficient cause explained by assessee, ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed both the appeals of the assessee on account of being delay in filing the appeals. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the during the assessment proceedings notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessing officer has passed an ex-parte order u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order was delivered on the assessee’s Chartered Accountant, who did not inform the assessee, therefore, the quantum appeal in was delayed by 634 days before the Ld.CIT(A). Similarly, there was delay of 477 days in case of assessee`s penalty appeal in Ld.CIT(A). The reasons for delay were same in both the appeals. Learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted affidavit for both the appeals, citing the reasons for delay and argued that assessee should not be penalized because of the mistake committed by his previous advocate/CA.

On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue pointed out that the assessee did not submit any authorized letter of the CA before the Ld.CIT(A) and nor filed affidavit, therefore, delay should not be condoned, and appeal of the assessee should be dismissed on account of condonation of delay.

On merit, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal of assessee in was ex-parte, before assessing officer, and now the assessee wants to submit some additional documents and evidences before the assessing officer to prove his claim on merit. Therefore, the quantum of the assessee may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. When the quantum appeal is restored back to the file of the assessing officer, then penalty appeal in , does not have any leg to stand, however, said penalty appeal may also be restored back to the file of the assessing officer. On the other hand, ld.CIT- DR for the revenue did not have any objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

We note that order passed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order without considering the assessee’s submission on merit. We also note that order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act, therefore, Assessing Officer has not examined the basic facts of the assessee’s case, hence we are of the view that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. 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. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the assessing officer for adjudication the issue afresh, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to mention, the assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings before the lower authorities for disposal of these cases. For statistical purposes, the quantum appeal of the assessee in is treated as allowed.