GHANSHYAM BHIKHBHAI SUTARIA,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT (SMC
Before: DR. A. L. SAINI
आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 31.07.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 27.12.2019.
At the outset itself, 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, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel submitted that notices from ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, therefore assessee could
ITA.655/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Ghanshyam B. Sutaria not attend the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel argued that one more opportunity to plead the case before the ld. CIT(A) may be granted to the assessee and therefore the assessee’s lis may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for making fresh assessment.
On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted details and documents before the ld CIT(A), however, I note that ld CIT(A) did not consider the details and documents submitted by assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice. I also note that ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record and did not consider the submission made by assessee. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). 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 ld. CIT(A) 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.
ITA.655/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Ghanshyam B. Sutaria CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 29/12/2023 in the open court.
Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat �दनांक/ Date: 29/12/2023 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat
