PREMJIBHAI DANABHAI BHANKHODIYA,MORBI vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, MORBI

Grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows: The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each others 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal in violation of principles of natural justice; 1.1 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in dismissing the ground related to validity of re-assessment proceedings; 3.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in confirming the estimated addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 15,18,000/-, which may kindly be deleted and justice be done; Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee was not aware of the Faceless proceedings. The assessee resides in the remote areas in village, there is no internet facilities and therefore did not receive any notices of hearing also. Therefore, the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer. On appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.Counsel of the assessee did not help the assessee and because of the mistake of the Ld.Counsel of the assessee, the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) remains unattended. Therefore, Ld.Counsel contended that because of mistake of the Ld.Counsel of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalized and one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to pled his case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR did not raised any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

We have heard both the parties. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/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.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Ld.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer. We 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. 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. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we 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, we 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, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.