LAXMI AGRICULTURE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,SAMTA NAGAR, BIKANER vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against an ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Central (NFAC/CIT(A)) dated 24.06.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal stating the assessee was not interested as there was no response to hearing notices, without mentioning the date of service of such notices. The assessee contended this was a violation of principles of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by not ensuring proper service of notice under Section 250 of the Act. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring proper opportunity is given to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without ensuring proper service of hearing notices and adequate opportunity to the assessee violated principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HONBLE & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HONBLE
These Appeals by the assessee are filed in duplicate against the order of National Faceless Appeal Central, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC/CIT(A)""] dated 24.06.2024 in respect of assessment year 2017-18, challenging therein ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A), in violation of principles of natural justice.
Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the material available on record, we find that ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee by stating that appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal, as there was no response to the notice of hearings from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the facts of the date of service of these notices on the assessee issued u/s 250 of the Act, to enable the assessee to present his submissions in defence of the claims made in the grounds of appeal. In the present case, the factum of service of notice of hearing on the assessee is neither mentioned nor inferred from the record that certainly tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice and debarred the assessee an adequate opportunity to argue it case before the CIT (A) on merits.
In our view, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits after granting adequate opportunity by proper service of notice on the assessee and he deemed to have disproved the claim of the assessee by rebutting its contention with support of corroborative documentary evidence on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment Opportunity of being heard Setting aside of assessment Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done - Fact that the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is assessment order that counts Assessment order set aside and matter remanded to assessing authority for fresh consideration."
Considering the principles of natural justice, it would be appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh by addressing the grounds of appeal on merit of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the written submissions and documentary evidences filed on record and may be filed in the de novo appellate proceedings. In the case, the CIT (A) is not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, and he intends to take any adverse view against the appellant-assessee, may be allowed an opportunity to rebut.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate the issue de novo in accordance with law.
The ITA No. 697/Jodh/2024 (2017-18) is the duplicate appeal and hence get merged with the ITA No. 663/Jodh/2024. Thus, it is dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, ITA No. 663/Jodh/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17/11/2025 in the open Court. (LALETT KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMEBER Dated :.1.1.1.1.1./2025 Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File (DR/MITHA LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER By Oder
