Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The assessee contended that the orders were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice as they were not properly heard. The assessee also claimed that notices were not served properly before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the orders passed were ex-parte and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. While noting the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
Appellant by : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing : 17/03 /2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM;
Captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17& 2017-18, are directed against the separate orders passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both orders dated 15/10/2024, which in turn arise out of separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) , both orders dated 29/03/2022.
2. 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 Page | 1 contended assessee has filed the return of income in response to last notice issued by the assessing officer on 17th March 2022, and assessee filed the return of income, before the assessing officer, on 28th March 2025, however, the assessing officer framed the assessment order, on 29th March 2025, without giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee. Therefore, ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee.
Learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, vehemently argued that the assessee did not appear before both the authorities. Before, assessing officer, the assessee submitted return of income on 28th March 2025, at the end of the limitation period of passing the assessment order. Besides, the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A), at all, therefore, the assessee has non-compliance attitude, hence, cost of Rs.2000/- may be imposed on the assessee, which can be deposited in the Prime Minister national relief fund, and thereafter the matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
3.We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We 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 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. The fact also remains that CIT(A) has nowhere dealt with merits of the issue whilst upholding the Assessing Officer’s action.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). 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. We also find that the assessee under consideration did not make compliance before the assessing officer and did not submit required documents and evidences before the assessing officer, therefore we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing officer.
4. On account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, we have imposed a cost of Rs.2000/- on the assessee, which is to be deposited in the Prime Minister national relief fund.
5. Considering the above facts we, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the instant both lis back to the assessing officer for afresh detailed adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunities of hearing to the taxpayer.
6. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18/03/2025.