Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
Per A.D. Jain, Vice President:
This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.02.2023, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
471-c-2023-– Haripur Kraft Co., Solan 2 2. We find that the matter was fixed for hearing on today, i.e., 13.03.2023, which date of hearing was duly intimated to the Assessee through RPAD Notice issued. However, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Thus, finding that the matter can be proceeded with in the absence of the Assessee, we have heard the ld. DR and we are proceeding to pass this order.
From the grounds of appeal and records, we find that the sole grievance of the Assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding the proceedings by passing an ex-parte order, dated 10.02.2023, without proper perusal of the assessment record and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer; that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer without adjudicating the legal issue and other issues on merit; that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction of the issue of notice under section 148; and that the dismissal of the appeal ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A) is based on wrong appreciation of the facts. The Assessee, through the grounds of appeal raised, sought a reasonable opportunity of hearing of the appeal before the lower authorities and the appeal needs to be directed to be decided on merits.
We have heard the ld. DR who, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
471-c-2023-– Haripur Kraft Co., Solan 3 5. We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ex-parte by merely confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, without considering the material available on record, and also without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, by assuming that the Assessee is not really interested in pursuing the appeal to its logical conclusion since the Assessee had filed the appeal but failed to justify his claim by not responding to the notices issued. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue Authorities which demonstrate that the notices have been served upon the Assessee. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below, she has no objection if the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in 471-c-2023-– Haripur Kraft Co., Solan 4 the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14. 03.2024.