DINESHKUMAR UJABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS 3, , AHMEDABAD

Both these appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year (AY).2015-16, are barred by limitation by eighteen (18) days. The Ld.

On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons to condone the delay, therefore the delay should not be condoned in both these appeals.

I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and I note that delay has occurred due to non-receipt order of ld. CIT(A). As soon as, the assessee received the order of Ld CIT(A), the assessee immediately consulted his advocate to file these appeals and I note that in this process, the eighteen (18) days delay have occurred. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and having regard to the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay, I condone the delay in both these appeals and admit these appeals for hearing.

On merits, ld Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that assessee did not receive the notices of hearings (in case of both these appeals) from the ld CIT(A), on the email id, provided by the assessee to the Revenue Authorities, therefore assessee could not appear before ld CIT(A) and as a result, the ld CIT(A) passed an ex- parte order without hearing the assessee. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order of ld CIT(A), by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and

On the other hand, ld DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in his approach, during the appellate proceedings, hence both appeals of the assessee may be dismissed.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the above facts, 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 material available on record. 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. 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 appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed.