KANCHANBEN KIRITBHAI PATEL L/H OF JELIBEN GOPALBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(3)(6), SURAT

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036529207(1) dated 22.10.2021, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

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 Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in passing ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee despite of the fact that assessee had already requested for adjustment before the order under section 250 of the Act was passed by the CIT(A), NFAC. The Learned Counsel submits that although the Assessment Year. 2012-13 Kanchanben Kirtibhai Patel assessee did not make compliance of the notices during the appellate proceedings, however the assessee has participated and took adjournment, therefore it is quite clear that assessee wanted to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A), however Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order without granting further time to the assessee. Therefore, Learned Counsel contended that an another opportunity to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC should be granted to the assessee.

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 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.

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