Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 17.11.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 13.12.2017 passed by learned DCIT-1(1) Bhopal, [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the findings of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi are bad and opposed to facts, equity and law and are, therefore, unsustainable in law. Page 1 of 4 KailashSingh Assessment year 2015-16 2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in making addition of Rs. 21,261/- as per the provision of section 37(1) of the act, without appropriate reasons and justification, hence the same should be deleted.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in making addition of Rs. 1,39,717/- as per the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act, without appropriate reasons and justification, hence the same should be deleted.
Because the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi has passed ex pate order without appropriate opportunity of hearing.
The appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal
before or at the time of hearing.”
2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused.
3. Ld. AR carried us to Page No. 4 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all notices of hearing of first-appeal were issued to the mail kailashsingh2504@yahoo.com of assessee. But those notices could not come to the knowledge of assessee since the assessee is not accessing the impugned mail id. Ld. AR carried us to Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo) to demonstrate that the assessee has given a different mail id even in the said Form No. 36 for the very same reason. Ld. AR submits that since the notices of hearing of first appeal were not received, the assessee could not attend the hearing, which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR prays that the matter may be remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld. DR does not have any objection but prays to direct the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. In view of such pleadings by parties and also KailashSingh Assessment year 2015-16 having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier decision. We order accordingly. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on ….../……/2023. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/04/2023.