Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM
O R D E R
PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], Surat in Appeal No. CAS/4/432/2017-18 dated 07.01.2019, 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 27.12.2017.
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 submitted the reasons for non-appearance during the appellate proceedings which is reproduced below:
“In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) has alleged that in response to the following notices under section 250 of the Act, the appellant has Assessment Year. 2016-17 Bhavna Bullion Pvt. Ltd. failed to comply with the notices which is absolutely incorrect as explained in the following table.
Sr. Date of Date of Remark No. Issue of hearing Notice 1. 19-09-2018 08-10-2018 The AR of the appellant was busy in time baring Income Return and Tax Audit Reports and hence compliance could not be made. 2. 30-11-2018 11-12-2018 The senior partner of the AR of the appellant was sick and on leave and hence compliance could not be made. 3. 17-12-2018 04-01-2019 The AR of the appellant had personally appeared and requested for filling written submission after a 3-4 days time which was orally granted by the learned CIT(A). However, in spite of orally granting 3 to 4 days’ time for making submissions, the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned appellate order on an ex-parte basis.
Based on the above facts, Ld. Counsel prays that another opportunity to represent the case before first appellate authority may 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.
Assessment Year. 2016-17 Bhavna Bullion Pvt. Ltd. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced at the time of hearing of appeal on 11/01/2022 in the Virtual Court of hearing.