Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was directed against an order from the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearing opportunities, and no adjournment requests were made. The Revenue contended that the assessee had not provided documentary evidence to lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and non-speaking, and that the issue was not decided as per section 250(6) of the Act. It was held that principles of natural justice require sufficient opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order was compliant with principles of natural justice and proper procedure, and whether a de novo assessment was warranted.
Sections Cited
250, 144(1)(b), 147, 144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश/Order PerDr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Mumbai [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 09.02.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144(1)(b) of the Act, dated 27.06.2019.
Notice of hearing of this appeal was sent to the assessee at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. The said notice has not been returned unserved. Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was made. Three opportunities (AY-17-18) Varsha G Pipalava 2 of hearings were given to the assessee. It means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. The Ld. Sr-DR submitted that assessee had nowhere furnished documentary evidence during the proceeding before lower authorities. Therefore, heavy cost of Rs.5,000/- should be imposed on the assessee, if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities, as the assessee is wasting time and resources of the lower authorities.
Having heard the Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue and gone through materials available on record. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.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. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not examined assessment records and relevant documents and has not passed any speaking order. Considering the above facts, 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. On account of non- compliance attitude of the assessee a cost of Rs. 5000/- is imposed on the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met, if the Assessing Officer re-adjudicates the entire issue afresh subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the “Prime Minister Relief Fund” within 2 weeks from receipt of this order. If the assessee makes default in making the payment of cost then the consequential proceedings would be deemed, as vacation of our instant remand order. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee