SHRI KISHORBHAI KALUBHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee, assailed the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) contending that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue raised by assessee on merit. The ld. Counsel also argued that Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer dated 29.09.2016 passed u./s 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas assessee’s appeal relates to quantum proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, findings of Ld. CIT(A) relates to penalty proceedings and not quantum proceedings. Therefore, Ld. Counsel prays the A.Y. 13-14 Sh. Kashorbhai K Golaviya Bench the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication..

On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has been given nineteen (19) opportunities by Ld. CIT(A) to plead its case, however, assessee took only adjournments therefore further opportunities should not be given to the assessee. The Ld. Sr-DR therefore states that assessee’s appeal may be dismissed.

We have heard both the parties and we note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided various issues ground-wise in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee in memo of appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not examined assessment records and relevant documents, and has not passed any speaking order. We note that there is also a typographical error in para- 5.3 of the order passed by LD. CIT(A), wherein Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that “order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) is upheld”. However, we note that it is quantum proceedings before Ld. CIT(A); therefore we note that it is only unintentional mistake which can be rectified. Considering the above facts, 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, 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 after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) as and when the date of hearing and to provide with all necessary evidence and information without any further delay and not to seek the adjournment without any valid reasons. The ld.CIT(A) is also A.Y. 13-14 Sh. Kashorbhai K Golaviya directed to dispose the appeal as early as possible in accordance with law. Thus, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.