Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Appellant represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar , (Sr -DR) Date of hearing 09/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 09/02/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. 1. This appeal by assessee is e directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) both dated 20/05/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2016- 17.
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 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 appeal is to be decided on merit.
Arham Property (AY 2016-17) The ld AR for the assessee submits that in the statement of facts the assessee has explained all the facts, the ld CIT(A) even has not considered such facts available on record. The ld. AR of 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 she undertake on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in attending the hearing before ld CIT(A).
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.
I have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 27/12/2017 made addition of Rs. 5,10,000/- on account of unaccounted payments added on protective basis. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee
Arham Property (AY 2016-17) by holding that in spite of several opportunities, no one attended the hearing proceedings. We find that the ld CIT(A) has not considered the basic facts available on record in the form of statement of facts file with Form -35. We 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.
5. Considering the fact that ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order, in my view, the assessee was not offered sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing, 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) 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 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 raised by the Arham Property (AY 2016-17) assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th February, 2023.