Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A), which arose from an order by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel argued that the appointed advocate did not cooperate, leading to non-appearance before the lower authorities. The revenue suggested a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without delving into the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for adequate hearing opportunities. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee, which has already been deposited.
Key Issues
The appeal arose due to the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities and the subsequent ex-parte orders. The assessee sought an opportunity to present their case with sufficient evidence.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM.
Appellant by : Shri Anil G. Kothiya, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing : 13/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM;
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), vide order dated 27/01/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, dated 27/03/2023, u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the outset itself, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the chartered accountant/ advocate appointed by the assessee did not cooperate the assessee and he neither appeared before the assessing officer nor appeared before the ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the notices of hearings were not served on the MAHESHBHAI VASHRAMBHAI PANSURIYA assessee during the appellate proceedings, therefore, the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. The ld.Counsel submitted that because of the mistake of an advocate, the assessee should not be penalized and therefore the assessee should be given another opportunity to plead his case before the lower authorities.
On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue submitted that there is a non- compliance on the part of the assessee, before the assessing officer, as well as before the ld. CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings, therefore cost of Rs.10,000/- may be imposed on the assessee. Since the order passed by the assessing officer is an ex-perte order, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
I have heard both the parties. Both the Learned Representatives are ad idem at the outset in informing me that ld. CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte after noting that the assessee did not appear for hearing fixed on various dates, during the course of lower appellate proceedings. The fact also remains that CIT(A) has nowhere dealt with merits of the issue whilst upholding the Assessing Officer’s action. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant issue back to the assessing officer for afresh detailed adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunities of hearing to the taxpayer. On account of non-compliance, attitude of the assessee, I am of the view that a cost of Rs.10,000/- should be imposed on the assessee, which is to be deposited in the Prime Minister national relief fund. I have noted that the assessee has deposited Rs.10,000/- in the Prime Minister national relief fund and donation receipt of the same has been furnished by the assessee before the registry of this Tribunal.
5.The ld. Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that order of CIT(A) may be set aside and the issues raised before CIT(A) be remanded to the assessing MAHESHBHAI VASHRAMBHAI PANSURIYA officer for fresh consideration. It has been submitted that at the assessment stage the assessee could not produce all the evidences. The ld. DR did not object to the prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. I accept the prayer of the assessee and set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) for fresh consideration by the assessing officer with a liberty to the assessee to prove his case by producing sufficient evidence/material to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25 / 04 /2025.