SHRI CHIRAGBHAI ANANTBHAI BHATT,RAJULA CITY , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WD-3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the 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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of the assessing officer.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. 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. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, Page 2 of 3 we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 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. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes