SARASWATIBEN JAYNTILAL SOMAIYA,BHUJ vs. ITO OFFICER, ITO WARD BHUJ

At the outset itself, I note that 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 order passed by the assessing officer as well as order passed by

The ld. 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, and matter may be restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.

I have heard Ld. DR for the Revenue, 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. 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. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a minimum cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. If the assessee did not deposit the cost in Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days of receipt of this order, then this order shall be deemed as vacation, and assessee’s appeal would be treated as Saraswatiben Jayntilal Somaiya dismissed. The Assessing Officer, while passing the appeal effect order should also examine whether the assessee had deposited the amount of cost in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund or not. 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 Ld. 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. 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 Ld. 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.