KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 717/SRT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 December 2023AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to plead their case before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the Ld. CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee contended that they could not represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A) and the order was passed ex parte, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee had sought an adjournment but was not given further opportunity to submit details.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) order was vitiated due to violation of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Ms Chaitali Shah, CA, Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 21/12/2023

आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, 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 29.08.2023, 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 20.12.2016.

2.

At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice.

1.

ITA.717/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and seek adjournment, however ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. Therefore, ld. Counsel contended that an opportunity to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A), may be granted, to the assessee.

3.

On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

4.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee sought adjournment during the appellate proceedings, however, the ld. CIT(A) did not give further opportunity to the assessee to submit details and documents. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). We 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, we 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, we 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 ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

ITA.717/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced on 21/12/2023 in the open court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →