RAJUMIYA DILAVAR BAHARUNI,VERAVAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5, VERAVAL

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dated 21.01.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 19.03.2022.

When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly before learned CIT(A) by 95 days. The learned Counsel adverted our attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed on time before the Ld. CIT(A) and because of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalized. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that since the assessee was negligent in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), on time, therefore delay should not be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal before learned CIT( A).

On merit, 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 assessee wants to submit additional documents and evidences before the assessing officer to prove his claim. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another

The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

We have heard both the parties. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 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. We also note that assessee wants to submit additional documents and evidences 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. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment, proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.

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