HARESHBHAI L RUDAKIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 169/SRT/2022Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 February 2023AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the minor delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the Supreme Court's directions regarding pandemic-related delays. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication, citing principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 143 days. The assessee contended that the effective delay was only one day, with the rest attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee also claimed non-receipt of notices before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

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 Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02/02/2023Pronounced: 22/02/2023

आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to the 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 (NFAC), Delhi, dated 08.11.2021 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 143 days. The assessee moved a petition, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel explained that effective delay is only for 1 day and delay for 142 days which attributable to Covid-19 pandemic disease which is condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto application, in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022, dated 10.01.2022. Therefore, effective delay in filling the appeal is only one day, which may be condoned in the interest of justice.

1.

ITA.169/SRT/2022/AY.2013-14 Hareshbhai L. Rudakiya 3. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue has fairly agreed that most of the delay in filling the appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022. The effective delay in filling the appeal is only for one day.

4.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee. We note that the entire delay in filling the appeal is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022, dated 10.01.2022, except one day delay, therefore, we condone the minor delay of one day and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merits.

5.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) because notices were not received by him during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, another opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A).

6.

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

7.

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,

ITA.169/SRT/2022/AY.2013-14 Hareshbhai L. Rudakiya 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.

8.

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

Order is pronounced on 22/02/2023 by placing result on notice board.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →