KAMLESH JETHMAL SHAH,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 368/SRT/2023Status: HeardITAT Surat22 August 2023AY 2009-10Bench: DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NFAC/CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed by the NFAC/CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity to present the case. The assessee claimed that the NFAC/CIT(A) did not grant an adjournment, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order was vitiated due to violation of the principle of natural justice by the appellate authority. Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. A. L. SAINI, AM

Hearing: 21/08/2023Pronounced: 22/08/2023

आदेश / ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “NFAC/ld. CIT(A)”], dated 21.04.2023, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 30.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal

1.

raised by the assessee are as follows: “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming penalty levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without providing enough opportunities to represent the case of the assessee.

3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer may please be deleted.

ITA.368/SRT/2023 AY.09-10 Kamlesh J Shah

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset itself, the Learned 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. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in order to submit details and documents, the assessee sought for adjournment during appellate proceedings, however, NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) did not grant the adjournment and passed ex parte order dated 21.04.2023, which is against the principle of natural justice. The ld Counsel also stated that in assessee`s case the basic facts have not been examined by 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.

4.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities.

5.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. I note that assessee filed adjournment application, however, NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) did not grant the adjournment, therefore assessee could not file documents and evidences before ld CIT(A) and as a result, NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order, as ex parte. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the NFAC/ld. CIT(A). I note that the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party

ITA.368/SRT/2023 AY.09-10 Kamlesh J Shah 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 NFAC/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.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →