HIMESH RAMESHCHANDRA GOHIL,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts by upholding an addition of Rs.4,00,000/- made by Ld. AO u/s 80GGC of the Act.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not file relevant documents and evidences before lower authorities, to prove his claim, as those documents and evidences were not available, when the proceedings were going on before the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel further stated that now the assessee obtained those documents and additional evidences which are to be submitted before the Assessing Officer to prove his claim. Therefore, Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer, hence, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue, did not raise any objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer based on these documents and evidences, so submitted by the assessee, would adjudicate the issue in accordance with law.

I have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I 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. I 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, I 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. Therefore, I 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.Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidence at the earliest possible of time before Assessing Officer as and when call for. In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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