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 26.05.2023, for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
471-c-2023-– Haripur Kraft Co., Solan 2 2. At the outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee that the sole grievance of the Assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order dated 26.5.2023 in contravention of the provisions of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; that the ld. CIT(A) concluded the proceedings by passing an ex-parte order without proper perusal of the assessment record and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer; that during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the firm e-filed the adjournment applications on the income tax portal on 2.2.2021, 1.4.2021, 26.4.2023 and 12.5.2023 but the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly recorded in the order that the firm had not filed any application for adjournment or filed any reply and presumed that the firm is not interested in prosecuting the appeal though the adjournment applications had been e-flied; and that the dismissal of the appeal ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A) is based on wrong appreciation of the facts. It has further been submitted that the impugned order confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), by passing an ex-parte order is totally unfair, arbitrary and unjustified. In support of its aforesaid contentions, the Assessee has placed on record an Affidavit dated 6.1.2024. It is submitted that the Assessee has a fair case on merits and, therefore, prayed that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the Assessee may be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing
471-c-2023-– Haripur Kraft Co., Solan 3 of the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal may be directed to be decided on merits.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
Heard. 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, under the mistaken impression that the Assessee had not filed adjournment application, whereas in fact, it had done so. 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 471-c-2023-– Haripur Kraft Co., Solan 4 hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in 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 08.01.2024