SHRI DIPAKKUMAR PARSOTAMDAS ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Learned Counsel for the assessee Counsel for the assessee, argued that in the above petition for ed that in the above petition for condonation of delay, the assessee has explain the reasons for delay and condonation of delay, the assessee has explain the reasons for delay and condonation of delay, the assessee has explain the reasons for delay and sufficient cause for delay, therefore, the sufficient cause for delay, therefore, the delay should be condoned in the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue sub 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee has mitted that assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned based on the filmsy reasons, and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. s, and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. s, and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that assessee 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that ass 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that ass has provided the email-id of his accountant/advocate. The notices of hearing id of his accountant/advocate. The notices of hearing id of his accountant/advocate. The notices of hearing were delivered on on the the email-id email of his accountant/advocate. accountant/advocate. The accountant/advocate did not inform the assessee accountant/advocate did not inform the assessee about notices of hearing about notices of hearing. The 2 assessee came to know when assessee came to know when demand notice was issued by the assessing officer the assessing officer. Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, I note that Therefore, I note that because of mistake of the advocate of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised and hen assessee, the assessee should not be penalised and hence in the interest of ce in the interest of justice, I condoned the delay. justice, I condoned the delay.

On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee submitted entire that assessee submitted entire documents and details before the assessing officer. However, before the Ld. and details before the assessing officer. However, before the Ld. and details before the assessing officer. However, before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not submitted required details CIT(A) the assessee could not submitted required details and documents, and documents, during the appellate proceedings as the accountant the appellate proceedings as the accountant/advocate of the assessee did not of the assessee did not corporate, therefore the assessee the assessee could not submitted details and documentary details and documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee has ready to submit all order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee has ready to submit order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee has ready to submit the required documents and the required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A),therefore, therefore, Ld. Counsel prayed that one more opportunity Counsel prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld.CIT(A), and matter (A), and matter may be restored back to the file of the restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ld. DR for the Revenue . The ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh 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 have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put 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 forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144 the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

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 opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the 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 note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hen merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of ce it is a violation of principle of natural justice. principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without de 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 restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A A)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, after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and re to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of mit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.