What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee could not present their case due to circumstances beyond their control. The assessee had filed an adjournment application but subsequently failed to submit documents and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. Whether the CIT(A) followed the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act in passing the order.

Tejas Mahendrabhai Modi, Dang vs ITO | ITAT Surat 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

Hearing: 10/08/2023Pronounced: 10/08/2023

आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 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 07.03.2023, 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 28.03.2016.

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. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that though the assessee has ITA.366/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Tejas Mahendrabhai Modi filed adjournment application before ld. CIT(A) on 23.12.2020, however subsequently the assessee could not file the documents and evidences before ld. CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control, therefore 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.

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.

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. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record. 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.366/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Tejas Mahendrabhai Modi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced on 10/08/2023 in the open court.

TEJAS MAHENDRABHAI MODI,DANG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, NAVSARI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments