SAI DEVLOPERS,SURAT vs. DY.CIT CENTRAL CERCLE-4, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 122/SRT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 February 2023AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require an affected party to be given a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee could not represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to a legal dispute among partners, resulting in an ex parte order. The Revenue did not object to remitting the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

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

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Ariwala, AR
Hearing: 28/02/2023Pronounced: 28/02/2023

O R D E R

PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], in Appeal No. CAS/4/156/2016-17, dated 22.12.2017, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 29.09.2016.

2.

At the outset itself, the ld. 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. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of legal dispute amongst the partners, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that Assessment Year. 2014-15 Sai Developers an another opportunity to contest the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be granted to the assessee.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

4. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits. 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.

4.

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

Order is pronounced on 28/02/2023 by placing result on notice board.

More judgments on Section 271AAB

All 797 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →