REVKREESH FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 502/SRT/2018Status: HeardITAT Surat11 April 2022AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee could not represent their case. The assessee contended that notices of hearing did not reach them, violating 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 notices by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

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 Rasesh Shah, CA
Hearing: 11/04/2022Pronounced: 11/04/2022

O R D E R

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

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], Surat in Appeal No. CAS/2/372/2016-17, dated 24.05.2018, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 10.11.2016.

2.

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. Learned Counsel submits that notices of hearing were not reached to assessee during appellate proceedings, hence assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel prays that another opportunity to represent the case before first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.

Assessment Year. 2011-12 Revkressh Fashion Pvt. Ltd.

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 also note that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the various issues on merits. 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.

4.

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

Order is pronounced on 11/04/2022 by placing result on 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 →