ANISA ZUBERAHMED MIRZA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices, preventing the assessee from presenting their case. The original assessment order was also passed under Section 144 due to the assessee's inability to submit required documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied natural justice due to non-receipt of notices during appellate proceedings, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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) 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 17.08.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 04.12.2019.
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 order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice.
ITA.616/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Anis Zuberahmed Mirza The ld Counsel pointed out that due to non-receipt of notices during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not file the relevant documents and evidences during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel also stated that since the assessment order was also passed under section 144 of the Act, as the assessee could not submit the required documents and details due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, matter may be set aside and remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh. The ld Counsel accepts the responsibility to submit the required documents and details before the assessing officer. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee.
On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and stated that negligent assessee should not be given second inning and therefore assessee`s appeal may be dismissed.
I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. I note that ld. CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records and the assessment order to adjudicate the issue on merit. I find that assessee filed the written submission before ld CIT(A), however, could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A), due to non-receipt of notices during appellate proceedings. The assessee could not get proper opportunity to contest his case during appellate proceedings. Since the assessment order was framed by assessing officer under section ITA.616/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Anis Zuberahmed Mirza 144 of the Act, 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 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 30/10/2023 in the open court.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026