TAPI DEVELOPERS,TAPI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/SRT/2022Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 December 2022AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee could not present necessary documents and details before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond their control. The CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits based on the available material.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and whether the CIT(A)'s order was passed on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,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 Suresh K. Kabra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28/12/2022

O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Surat-4/10542/2018-19, dated 26.07.2022 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 11.12.2018.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel argued that assessee has participated during the appellate proceedings and took adjournment to file details and documents. However, documents and details could not be filed due to circumstances beyond its control. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case before first appellate authority.

3.

On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

1.

ITA.244/SRT/2022/AY.2011-12 Tapi Developers 4. We have heard both the parties. 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, 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.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 29/12/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →