SHREE BALAJI COAL TRADERS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the revision order of the Ld. Pr. CIT- 1, Kolkata passed u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 28.02.2017 for AY 2013-14.

At the outset itself, it has been brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that by raising ground no.1, the assessee has assailed the decision of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act that it has not been given proper opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the impugned order wherein we note that the Ld. Pr. CIT had issued notice u/s. 263 of the Act on 22.11.2016 and on the date of hearing the assessee had sought adjournment and thereafter the matter was re-fixed for hearing on 17.01.2017 and since none appeared, the matter was again fixed for hearing on 08.02.2017. But since none appeared on that date, the Ld. Pr. CIT has passed the ex parte order against the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee did not get an opportunity of being heard because the second and the third Shree Balaji Coal Traders Ltd., AY 2013-14 notice which the Ld. Pr. CIT notes in the impugned order has not been received by the assessee. For substantiating the aforesaid fact, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee company which has been found to have been notarized and placed before us wherein the contents of the affidavit support the aforesaid claim/contention made by the Ld. AR. It has to be kept in mind that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act though notice as such is not required to be issued by CIT, but opportunity of hearing is sine qua non before passing the order. If opportunity of hearing is not given then the order is fragile for violation of natural justice. In this case, by an affidavit the director of the assessee company has pleaded that they were unaware of the hearing fixed for the second and third notice as mentioned to the Ld. CIT in the impugned order. Since it did not receive the notice and because it was unaware of the hearing fixed before Pr CIT, it could not participate in the hearing which means the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard thus violating the principles of natural justice. So, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. Pr. CIT to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass order in accordance to law de novo. Therefore, this ground of appeal