SAMIR VINODRAY MAKWANA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJOT, RAJKOT
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order passed by the AO. The appeal was filed beyond the limitation period by 46 days. The assessee requested condonation of delay, citing reasons such as the son handling the tax matters moving abroad and the appointed consultant's negligence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the explanation provided. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking and did not decide the issue as per the mandate of Section 250(6). Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is liable to be set aside on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice?
Sections Cited
144, 147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH “SMC”, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIShri Samir Vinodray Makwana
Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM; Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), dated 18.12.2017. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is barred by limitation of 46 days. The assessee moved an affidavit for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient reasons stating that assessee was not conversant with accessing e-mail etc. Besides, the tax consultant appointed by the assessee did not take care of the ITA No. 28/RJT/2025A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana
taxation matters of the assessee and the assessee`s son who used to handle the assessee`s taxation matters, has left to Singapore. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that ex- parte order passed by Ld.CIT(A) due to non-submission of relevant papers. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee filed an affidavit to explain sufficient cause and stated that such minor delay may be condoned.
However, Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned.
I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that his son who handled the assessee`s appeal has left to Singapore, therefore, assessee approached another Chartered Accountant to prepare Form No.36 and other papers and in this process such minor delay has occurred. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay.
On merit, 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. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that there is no point to give second inning to the assessee and assessee`s appeal should be dismissed, as the assessee was negligent before both the lower authorities as he did not appear before both the lower authorities.
I have heard both the parties and note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and the ITA No. 28/RJT/2025A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana
impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. I 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. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee, to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. 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, 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 Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidence at the earliest possible of time before Assessing Officer as and when call for. In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2025. (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 29/04/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S ITA No. 28/RJT/2025A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana
आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant ""यथ"/ The Respondent आयकर आयु"/ CIT आयकर आयु"(अपील)/ The CIT(A) िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड"फाईल/ Guard File //// By order/आदेशसे , सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,राजकोट
