RAU RAM,MORBI vs. ITO WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 464/RJT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 February 2025AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not plead their case successfully before the CIT(A) and had not submitted all documents and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Considering this, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that principles of natural justice and fair play mandate that an affected party be granted sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. For statistical purposes, the appeal was treated as allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rau Ram, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Rajkot, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte as the assessee could not appear and submit details and documents. This ex parte order arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee is now ready to submit the required details and documents before the lower authorities and requested the matter be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's representative did not object to this request.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should grant the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, considering the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to appear and submit documents, and the assessee's readiness to do so now. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they could not appear before the CIT(A) and submit necessary details and documents, leading to an ex parte order. They are now prepared to furnish these documents and requested the matter be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee relied on the principles of natural justice and fair play. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue did not object to the assessee's request for remission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhani, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 26/02/2025Pronounced: 27/02/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM:

1.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 27.05.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 26.05.2023.

ITA.464/Rjt/2024 AY.2014-15 Rau Ram Morbi v. ITO 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 147 of the Act. On appeal, before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appears and could not submit the details and documents, therefore ld. CIT(A) has also passed the ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore contended that now the assessee is ready to submit details and documents before the lower authorities, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

3.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue has not objected the request of the Ld. Counsel.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused material available on record. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. 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.

ITA.464/Rjt/2024 AY.2014-15 Rau Ram Morbi v. ITO 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced on 27/02/2025 in the open court.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →