SAROJ MAHENDRABHAI SETH,SURENDRANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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 before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has submitted some additional evidences, however, the Ld.CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidence and passed the order ex-parte without adjudicating on merit. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that now the assessee wants to submit the some additional evidences and documents to prove his claim, therefore, matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

I 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. I 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, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. The assessee has participated in appellate proceedings and sought adjournment during the appellate proceedings to file details and documents, 2 however, Ld. CIT(A) did not allow further time to the assessee. I 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, I 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 forthwith. I hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. Therefore, I 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 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes