SHRI MOHAMMAD YAQOOB BANDAY,BUDGAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 13.09.2022 in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18 challenging
therein the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) arising out of the ex-
2 ITA No. 212/Asr/2023 Mohammad Yaqoob Banday v. ITO parte Assessment Order passed by the AO by the Income Tax Officer,
Ward-2, Srinagar.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there
was a delay of 245 days in filing the appeal on account of the assessee
being old, illiterate and his son has been suffering, admitting to SMS
Srinagar who looked after her and its matter regarding filing of return,
business activity and other matters. Thus, he requested for condonation of
delay on compassionate ground.
The ld. DR although objected to the request of the assessee,
however, considering the medical ground of the appellant assessee, the
delay is condoned in the interest of justice and appeal is admitted on
merits.
At time of hearing in Virtual Court, the counsel submitted that both the
lower authorities, the AO and the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte
qua the assessee and thus, the assessee has been denied the opportunity
of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice. He pleaded that
the appellant may be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard
before the AO to present its case in view of the natural justice. He argued
that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without going into the merits
3 ITA No. 212/Asr/2023 Mohammad Yaqoob Banday v. ITO of the case and confirmed the addition made by the AO in an ex-parte
assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act in violation of principles of
natural justice. He pleaded that in the interest of justice, the matter may be
remanded back to the AO to pass denovo assessment order after granting
adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to present its case
before the Assessing Officer. In support, he placed the reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of “Bharat Aluminium
Company Ltd. v. Union of India.”
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the impugned order.
Heard both the sides, perused the material on record and the
impugned order. We find that both the lower authorities have passed the
order ex-parte qua the assessee. Thus, the assessee has been deprived of
an opportunity of being heard by the authorities below in violation of
principles of natural justice. In view of that matter, we consider it deem fit to
remand back the matter to the file of the AO to pass denovo assessment
order after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the appellant assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the
denovo assessment proceedings before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is
restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
4 ITA No. 212/Asr/2023 Mohammad Yaqoob Banday v. ITO 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order
