VANDANABEN RAJESH CHAUDHARY,SURAT vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9/SRT/2021Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 February 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require the affected party to be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte because the notice of hearing was not served. 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-service of notice on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,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 Hardik Vora, AR
Hearing: 08/02/2022Pronounced: 08/02/2022

O R D E R

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

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-13/Intl.Taxn/Ahd/211/2019-20 dated 11.11.2020, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 24.12.2019.

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 for the assessee submits that during the appellate proceedings, notice of hearing could not be served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not submit the documents and evidences before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Learned Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Assessment Year. 2012-13 Vandanaben Rajesh Chaudhary 3. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee 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.

4.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 08/02/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →