ALOK SRIPRAKASH SHUKLA,NEW ANJAR V. ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 487/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by the assessee, Shri Alok Sriprakash Shukla, against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeals pertain to the Assessment Year 2016-17 and challenge an unexplained addition in quantum assessment and the validity of a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on the merits, as the assessee had not submitted the required documents and evidences in time. Both parties agreed to remand the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40457 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.486 & 487/RJT/2024) Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Alok Sriprakash Shukla, Plot No. 46, Gurukul Nagar-2, Nr. Bhagat Sing Road, New Anjar-370110 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham Aayakar Bhavan, Sector-8, Gandhidham-370110 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPS 9037 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 03/06/2024 and 26/06/2024. In ITA No.486/RJT/2024 the assessee has challenged the unexplained addition in quantum assessment, wherein ITA No.487/RJT/2024 assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Both these appeals are interconnected, therefore with the consent of parties, both these appeals are clubbed and heard together ITA 486 & 487/Rjt/2024 Alok Sriprakash Shukla Vs ITO Page | 2 and are decided by the consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee sought adjournment to file details and documents. However, details and documents were not available with the assessee, so assessee was requesting for some more time to file documents and evidences. However, ld. CIT(A) meanwhile passed ex- parte order without adjudicating the issue on merit. The ld. Counsel further submitted that now the assessee is ready to submit required documents and evidences before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, both these appeals may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue has raised no objection if the Bench remit back both the appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. 4. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We find that the adjournments were sought by the assessee to file details and documents, as because no details and documents were available with the assessee. But the ld. CIT(A) has not given time to file such documents to the assessee. We find that ld. CIT(A) had not passed the order as per mandate of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act i.e. there is no adjudication by the ld. CIT(A) on merit, therefore, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case 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 ITA 486 & 487/Rjt/2024 Alok Sriprakash Shukla Vs ITO Page | 3 merits of the case, in the interests 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. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The assessee is also directed to submit all the documents, evidences and replies as soon as possible without any further delay. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. 5. Considering the facts that we have restored the grounds of appeal raised in quantum assessments to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive when the matter in quantum proceedings have been restored to the file of Assessing Officer, the penalty do not have leg to stand. However, the Assessing Officer is given liberty to initiate fresh penalty in accordance with law. In the result, the penalty proceeding is also allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In combined result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 22/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 22/10/2024 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S ITA 486 & 487/Rjt/2024 Alok Sriprakash Shukla Vs ITO Page | 4 आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाडªफाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, // True Copy // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,राजकोट "