Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed belatedly by 88 days. The assessee claimed that notices were not served properly, leading to their inability to appear before the CIT(A) for proceedings. The assessee wished to submit additional documents and evidence to the assessing officer.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging mitigating circumstances. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH (SMC
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI.
Appellant by : Shri Sunny Mehta, 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 Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM;
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20, is directed against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), vide order dated 19/09/2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, dated 08/03/2024, u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
3.At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not comply with the notices because all the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings,were not served on the assessee. As a result, the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A). In addition to this, the assessee wants to submit some additional documents and evidences before the assessing officer to prove his claim, therefore ld. Counsel argued that the matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue, did not have any objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. I note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). Both the Learned Representatives are ad- idem at the outset in informing me that CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex- parte after noting that the assessee did not appear for hearing fixed on various date.I, therefore observe that assessee’s absence on the above sole opportunity of hearing granted by lower appellate proceedings was neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of its non- service of notices on correct email-id of the assessee. The fact also remains that CIT(A) has nowhere dealt with merits of the issue whilst upholding the Assessing Officer’s action.
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, 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 Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/04/2025.