Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT (SMC
Before: SHRI 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) 2015-16, 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 27.05.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 27.12.2017.
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.
ITA.495/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Ashwinbhai Labhubhai Jodhani Counsel submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted adjournment application before ld. CIT(A) on 30.11.2018 and 08.11.2019 and participated in appellate proceedings, but the assessee could not file the details and documents due to circumstances beyond his control, therefore ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel argued that one more opportunity to plead the case before the Assessing Officer may be granted to the assessee and therefore the assessee’s lis may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment.
On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue fairly agreed that since in the assessee’s case, the Assessing Officer has not examined the basic documents and evidences, therefore it would be better to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the 4. submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. I note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). 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 submission of the assessee, which would have been submitted by him provided ld. CIT(A) had granted the adjournment and further opportunity to the assessee. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. I note that it is settled law that principles
ITA.495/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Ashwinbhai Labhubhai Jodhani 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. 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 14/12/2023 in the open court.