M/S. TIRUPATI AGRI BROKERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (4), RAJKOT

Facts of the case are that the appellant is partnership firm and engaged in the business of Brokerage in the line of Agro Commodities. Return of income declaring total income of Rs 6,35,590/- was e-filed on 30/09/2015. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and therefore, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT. Act, were issued to the appellant. In response to the notices, the appellant made a reply. The appellant has submitted requisite details of the business activities. Further, notice u/s. 142(1) and show-cause notice were again issued to the appellant to which Shri Bhavesh Pabari, C.A, an Authorized Representative of the assessee attended from time to time on behalf of the assessee and the case was discussed with him. Since the appellant failed to provide any plausible explanation of Rs. 59,00,300/-received from Shri Chetan Bhalodiya Prop of M/s Yash Enterprise, the AO added treated the amount as unaccounted sale of the appellant and made an addition of Rs.17,33,508/-, to the total income of the appellant, which works out to Rs.17,33,508/-.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) issued notices for hearing u/s.250 of the I T Act dated 23.01.2021, 31.10.2022 and 03.05.2023 to the appellant. In response to the same, the appellant did not filed any submission. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed and ex-parte order dated 26.05.2023 as the assessee failed to reopened various notice issued for hearing.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.

Ld. Counsel of the assessee prays that one more opportunity to represent the case before lower authority may kindly be granted to the assessee. Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating that due opportunities were given to the assessee. However, Ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the prayer of the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perusal the records available, we note that assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A) because notices were only sent not served on assessee. We also note that assessee has appeared before the Ld. AO and furnished all the documents. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient