TUSHARKUMAR GANESHBHAI GUJARATI,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

Assesee represented by Shri Vipin Jariwala, AR Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, (Sr.DR) Date of hearing 29/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 29/03/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 22/07/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

2. At the outset of hearing, learned Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in an ex parte order without considering the merit of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has a good case on merit and likely to succeed if the assessee is to be heard and the Tusharkumar Ganeshbhai Gujarati Vs ACIT appeal is to be decided on merit. The ld AR for the assessee submits that in the statement of facts the assessee has explained all the facts, the ld CIT(A) has not referred such facts available on record. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee was not acquainted with the faceless procedure of appeals so he could not make compliance of various notices. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed that matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh in accordance with law and he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in attending the hearing before ld CIT(A).

3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as ld CIT(A) granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The assessee failed to availed such opportunity and now taking plea that sufficient opportunity was not given to him. The assessee has no regards to the public authorities in attending the hearing before them and now claiming that no fair or reasonable opportunity was not given to the assessee. The assesse does not deserve any leniency, the ld CIT(A) passed the order after considering all the facts available before him.

I have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that the Tusharkumar Ganeshbhai Gujarati Vs ACIT Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 19/12/2019 made addition of Rs. 3.00 lacs under section 69A and taxed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act. On further appeal before, ld the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that in spite of several opportunities, no one attended the hearing proceedings and the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. I find that the ld CIT(A) has not given his finding on the basic facts available on record in the form of statement of facts file with Form -35. I further find that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by assessee as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Section 250(6) mandates that order of ld. CIT(A) must contain facts of the case, points of determination and decision thereon and reasons of such decision. The ld CIT(A) in a single sentence concluded his finding that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Considering the fact that ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order, therefore, the order of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide all the grounds of appeal afresh and in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in Tusharkumar Ganeshbhai Gujarati Vs ACIT future and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reason and to furnish all the details as soon as possible, if so desired without any further delay, before the ld. CIT(A). In the result, the grounds of appeal

TUSHARKUMAR GANESHBHAI GUJARATI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT