PRATAPRAI RANPARIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 1(2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assess back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 2,000/- may be imposed may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower authorities.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth 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 on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws 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 relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 of the Act and the of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non

Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. 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 he ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits he 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 based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of 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 t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Howe ever, on account of non-compliance attitude of the compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost of Rs. cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Re in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Therefore, without delving much without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and re set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the mit the matter back to the file of the Ld. assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For the reasons given For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into a o be looked into afresh by the assessing officer assessing officer in the light of the observations as set out above. light of the observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. The d and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee assessee is treated as allowed.