RANMALBHAI PALABHAI CHHUCHHAR,JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee hired advocate who did not appear during the assessment proceedings the assessee hired advocate who did not appear during the assessment proceedings the assessee hired advocate who did not appear during the assessment proceedings, therefore, because of the mistake of the advocate of he assessment proceedings, therefore, because of the mistake of the advocate of he assessment proceedings, therefore, because of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee could not furnish the he assessee could not furnish the relevant documents and evidence relevant documents and evidence during the assessment proceedings. On during the assessment proceedings. On appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not file required documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and as not file required documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and as a result not file required documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and as the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the various issue on parte order without adjudicating the various issue on merit. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted for the assessee further submitted that now the assessee now the assessee is ready to submit entire documents and details before the assessing officer, therefore, ready to submit entire documents and details before the assessing officer, therefore, ready to submit entire documents and details before the assessing officer, therefore, matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee submitted that the assessee had neither appeared before the assessing officer not before the Ld. CIT(A), neither appeared before the assessing officer not before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore neither appeared before the assessing officer not before the Ld. CIT(A), on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee cost of Rs. 10,000/ compliance attitude of the assessee cost of Rs. 10,000/- must be compliance attitude of the assessee cost of Rs. 10,000/ imposed on the assessee whic imposed on the assessee which can be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

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 2 & 503/Rjt/2025 Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar relied upon, and perused the relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. CIT(A) and other 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 r.w.s. 144 144 and 144B of the Act and the impugned order passed by t the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and he 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 merits do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 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 ld. ing heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. ing 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 note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits 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 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 play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost of Rs. cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee which should be on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Therefore, without delving without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, matter back to the file of Ld. AO Ld. AO for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 502/Rjt/2025) (ITA No. 502/Rjt/2025) is treated as allowed.

Since, I have remitted a quantum appeal of the assessee in quantum appeal of the assessee in (ITA 502/Rjt/2025 ITA 502/Rjt/2025) to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication for assessment year 2014 of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication for assessment year 2014-15. of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication for assessment year 2014 The assessee also filed an appeal before ITA 503/Rjt/2025 against penalty levied The assessee also filed an appeal before ITA 503/Rjt/2025 against penalty levied The assessee also filed an appeal before ITA 503/Rjt/2025 against penalty levied & 503/Rjt/2025 Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for as u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2014-15. Since, I have remitted 15. Since, I have remitted the quantum appeal to the file of the assessing officer, therefore, penalty imposed by file of the assessing officer, therefore, penalty imposed by file of the assessing officer, therefore, penalty imposed by the assessing officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the assessing officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not have any leg to stand. does not have any leg to stand. However, the AO initiate penalty proceeding However, the AO initiate penalty proceedings in de-novo assessment proceedings, novo assessment proceedings, if any, in accordance with law. if any, in accordance with law.

In the result, both the appeal the appeals of the same assessee are allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes