NORTHBROOK JUTE CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the time of hearing, it was noticed that the assessee has filed application for adjournment today. However, we noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. Therefore, we decided to dispose of the appeal after considering the materials A.Y. 2009-10 Northbrook Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kol Page 2 available on records and hearing the ld. DR. Accordingly the adjournment petition filed by the assessee was rejected.

At the outset, it was observed from the order of Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte on 14.03.2016 due to non appearance of the assessee. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before us and submitted in grounds of appeal that the no notice for hearing was submitted. As such, it was pleaded before us in the grounds of appeal that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity to the assessee.

On perusal of appellate order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of Assessing Officer ex parte without mentioning any reason for confirming the same on merits. The provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act require the Commissioner (Appeal) to dispose of the appeal in writing with reasoning. But we find from the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of AO without deciding the same on merit. We find that the ld. CIT (A) has not allowed proper opportunity of being heard. The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of natural justice. The expression “audi alteram partem” implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized society. The right to notice, right to present case and evidence, right to rebut adverse evidence, right to cross examination, right to legal representation, disclosure of evidence to party, report of enquiry to be shown to the other party and reasoned decisions or speaking orders. We took this guidance for right of hearing, from the ratio as is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that rule of fair hearing is necessary before passing any order. We find that it is pre-decision hearing standard of norm of rule of audi alteram partem. We find that in this instant case, the assessee was not given proper hearing. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee must be given one more opportunity of hearing and to represent his case. Therefore, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 28 of Tribunal Rules, we restore this appeal to the file of Ld. CIT (A) for reconsideration all grounds of appeal after allowing proper opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. Nevertheless, to mention that the