SACHIN MAGANLAL KOTAK,BHUJ-KUTCH vs. ITO WARD-4, GANDHIDHAM-BHUJ-2

PDF

ITA 233/RJT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 February 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceeding, the assessee took adjournment from time to time, however, assessee could not submit the documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A), due to circumstances beyond control, therefore another opportunity to contest the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be granted to the assessee. 3. 1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2016-17, directed against an order by the Ld. CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that they could not properly represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to an ex parte order, violating principles of natural justice.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead their case effectively before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the Ld. CIT(A) had not passed an order on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) order was vitiated due to violation of natural justice and whether the case should be remanded for de novo adjudication on merits.

Sections Cited

147, 144, 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. AR

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. (DR)

Hearing: 27/02/2025Pronounced: 27/02/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 21.02.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 30.03.2022.

Sachin Maganlal Kotak v. ITO (AY 2016-17)

At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that 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. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceeding, the assessee took adjournment from time to time, however, assessee could not submit the documents and evidences before the ld. CIT(A), due to circumstances beyond control, therefore another opportunity to contest the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be granted to the assessee.

On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case 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. 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 Ld. CIT(A) 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 ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the Sachin Maganlal Kotak v. ITO (AY 2016-17) issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.