Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was directed against an ex-parte order passed by the Learned CIT(A). The assessee contended that they could not represent their case before the CIT(A), leading to a violation of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out u/s 144, and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. The assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, and the case was not discussed on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश/ORDER Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT (A)-1 Coimbatore, (in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)'), dated 27.01.2025 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, dated: 03.12.2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Kadaviben Valji Lagdhir 2. 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 contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee.
The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.
We 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. We note that in the assessee 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, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We 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. We 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, A.Y. 2011-12 Kadaviben Valji Lagdhir without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO 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, we 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 AO to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment, proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.