Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal challenges an order by the CIT(Appeal) which upheld an assessment order. The assessee had filed his return of income, but the department selected the case for scrutiny. The assessee claims he was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed.
Held
The tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice. The CIT(Appeal)'s order infringed upon the assessee's right to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed by the CIT(Appeal).
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 271(F)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 291/JPR/2024
vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M Present appeal challenges order dated 24th Jan, 2024 passed by ld. CIT(Appeal), u/s 250 of Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2 . Vide impugned order, ld. CIT(Appeal) considered challenge to the assessment order dated 27.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
15 whereby income of the assessee was computed and assessed at Rs. 1,90,78,350/-. In addition thereto, penalty proceedings u/s 271(F) of the Act were initiated.
Arguments heard. File perused.
The assessee had filed his return of income on 08.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,36,27,850. He also declared his agricultural income as Rs. 9,54,948/-.
However, the department selected his case for scrutiny.
Thereupon, notices came to be issued to the assessee. He participated in the assessment proceedings through his authorized representative.
When the assessment order was challenged in appeal before ld. CIT(A), notices are stated to have been issued by the said office to the assessee on 21.08.2023 for 28.08.2023; on 05.09.2023 and 09.10.2023; and ultimately on 19.10.2023 by way of final opportunity, to enable the assessee to submit his case. recorded that the assessee did not submit any response to the above mentioned notices.
Accordingly, ld. CIT(Appeal) proceeded to decide the appeal, while taking into consideration whatever was available before him.
As noticed above, final notice was issued by Learned CIT(A) to the assesee on 19.10.2023.
Learned AR for the assessee has opened his arguments by submitting that as per impugned order, final opportunity was given to the assessee, by ld. CIT(Appeal) vide letter dated 19.10.2023, but, this is factually incorrect. In this regard, AR for the assessee has submitted copy of notice dated 5.12.2023, issued by ld. CIT(A), whereby the assessee was required to furnish his written submission on or before 12.12.2023.
Copy of said notice is accompanied by copy of an Annexure.
Subject of this Annexure specifies that this was the final show cause notic issued to the assessee. It also contains details of four notices earlier issued to the assessee i.e. during the period from 21.08.2023 to 19.10.2023. admits issuance of the above mentioned final show cause notice dated 05.12.2023 to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A).
In view of the above submissions and recorded, ld. AR for the assessee has rightly submitted that the final show cause notice was issued on 05.12.2023 for 12.12.2023 and that in the impugned order it has not been correctly recorded that final show cause notice was issued to the assessee vide letter dated 19.10.2023.
The issuance of final show cause notice dated 05.12.2023 is of much significance, the reason being that in reply thereto, the representative of the assessee submitted to the office of ld. CIT(A), a request seeking adjournment. The ground for seeking adjournment was that assessee was busy in some litigation with his partners, and further that he required time to prepare reply to the final show cause notice. about submission of the above said response from the assessee to the notice dated 05.12.2023, whereby he had sought adjournment.
Once adjournment was sought by the assessee in the appeal, for filing of reply, ld. CIT(A) was required to consider as to whether to allow or disallow the request.
All this goes to show that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard, before the impugned order came to be passed.
Right to be heard is one of essential characters of the principles of natural justice, the other right being of impartiality. We find merit in the contention raised by ld. AR for the assessee that the right provided to the assessee under the Act of being heard, has been infringed and his appeal has been dismissed without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the given situation, even ld. DR for the department is in agreement that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Conclusion
In view of the above discussion, we find that the matter deserves to be restored to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, heard. Result
As a result of the above findings, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order, the matter is restored to the appeal files of Learned CIT(A) with the directions to decide it afresh, after providing to the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and that too in accordance with law.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05/06/2024