Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2017-18, challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The NFAC's order arose from an assessment made under section 144(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard before the Ld. CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order which violated the principle of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not effectively present their case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)'s order was considered a non-speaking order and a violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is vitiated due to violation of the principle of natural justice, and if an opportunity for fresh adjudication should be granted.
Sections Cited
250, 144(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2017- 18, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 17.02.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144(1)(b) of the Act, on 10.12.2019.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not AY: 17-18 Dushyantkumar C. Raval (L/heirs of Vasantben C Raval) represent the 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 as the assessment completed u/ 144(1)(b) of the Act. The Ld. Counel for the assessee furnished various documents containing pages 1 to 51, which he could not file before Ld.CIT(A) as his mother, (assessee of this case) died on 21.08.2019. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that legal heirs of her (deceased assessee) son contested before Assessing Officer. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench and one more opportunity should be allowed to prove his case in the interest of justice. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. 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 in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144(1)(b) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is a non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised
by the assessee. AY: 17
18. Dushyantkumar C. Raval (L/heirs of Vasantben C Raval)
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. 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 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. I note that Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to prove assessee’s case before Assessing Officer. 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 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. 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/05/2025. (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 20/05/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S AY: 17-18 Dushyantkumar C. Raval (L/heirs of Vasantben C Raval)