Loading judgment…
Facts
The present appeal challenges an order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the CIT(Appeal), which dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant claims that their written submissions and documents uploaded on 18.01.2024 were not considered by the CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeal) correctly disposed of the appeal without considering the appellant's submissions and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 485/JPR/2024
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, Judicial Member.
Present appeal has been filed challenging order dated 13.02.2024 passed by ld. CIT(Appeal), as the appeal filed by the appellant there, came to dismissed thereby confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 06.12.2018. Actually, in that appeal, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte.
Shankuntla Devi vs. ITO While disposing of the appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeal) has observed that several notices were sent to the assessee-appellant including show cause notice finally issued on 07.02.2024, but there was no response from the side of the appellant.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Matter pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14.
As per record, after the appeal was filed before ld. CIT(Appeal), NFAC, notices dated 24.02.2021, 05.04.2021, 16.08.2021, 05.09.2022, 03.11.2023 & 15.01.2024 were issued to the assessee-appellant by the said office. As observed in the impugned order, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the said notices and the show cause notice dated 07.02.2024 stated to have been finally issued.
Ld. counsel for the assessee has placed on record, copy of letter dated 15.01.2024 from CIT(Appeal) NFAC and pointed out that the appeal presented there was adjourned to 18th Jan, 2024 while acceding to the request of the assessee for adjournment. Further, it has been pointed that on 18th Jan, 2024, the appellant submitted to Ld. CIT(A), written submissions with all relevant attachments, those written submissions and documents were not considered by Ld. CIT(A), while disposing of the appeal vide impugned order. Therefore, the Shankuntla Devi vs. ITO contentions is that the impugned order be set aside, and matter may be remanded to ld. CIT(Appeal), for decision afresh.
Ld counsel for the assessee has also referred to written submissions dated 19.06.2024 submitted before us claiming that no notice /letter was received from the office of Ld. CIT(A), on or before 12.02.2024.
Said reference has apparently been made to rebut what stands recorded in para 5.2 of the impugned order i.e. on 07.02.2024, the appellant was finally issued a show cause notice, but even that was not responded to.
In this regard, on behalf of the department, no material has been placed on record to suggest that show cause notice dated 07.02.2024 was served upon the assessee or that the abovesaid submission in the written submissions is incorrect.
However, Ld. DR of the department has no objection to the setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of the appeal to the files of ld. CIT(Appeal), for decision afresh.
In view of what has been submitted on behalf of the parties and also keeping in view the material available on record, we find that when the assessee-appellant had uploaded on the portal, written submissions with copies of certain documents, by way of attachments, on 18.01.2024, the Shankuntla Devi vs. ITO same were required to be considered by Ld CIT(Appeal). But, as is available from the impugned order, no such document or written submission was considered while disposing of the appeal. Result
As a result, we find that this is a case where reasonable opportunity of being heard has not been afforded to the appellant while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal for statistical purposes, the impugned order is set aside. Matter is restored to the files of Ld. CIT(A) for decision of the restored appeal, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant, of being heard.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/06/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Shakuntla Devi, Karampur, Tapukara 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi 2. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 4. 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत