What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing due to a change of address. The assessee contended that this violated the principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to non-receipt of hearing notice by the assessee.

Himatbhai Bhagvanbhai Bhalala vs ITO | ITAT Surat 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rushi Parekh, CA

Hearing: 30/03/2022Pronounced: 30/03/2022

O R D E R

PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], Surat in ITBA Appeal No. CIT(A)-11369/2016-17 dated 24.05.2018, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 26.12.2016.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel submits that assessee could not receive the notice of hearing during appellate proceedings, because of change of address, therefore assessee could plead his case before ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that an another opportunity to contest the appeal before the first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.

Assessment Year. 2014-15 Himatbhai B. Bhalala 3. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that 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.

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

Order is pronounced on 30/03/2022 by placing result on notice board.

HIMATBHAI BHAGVANBHAI BHALALA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments