ANILKUMAR HARGOVINBHAI PATEL,KALOL V. .THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, MEHSANA

ITA 178/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anilkumar Hargovinbhai Patel, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld an addition of Rs. 9,47,63,780/- made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appellant argued that the order was illegal, unlawful, and against the principles of natural justice, claiming that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the facts and evidence provided. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the absence of the appellant's response to notices. The appellant's representative argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider their reply and summarily dismissed the appeal without further inquiry. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant did not comply with the notices properly. The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer to ensure justice and proper consideration of the appellant's submissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25296 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHIT B JESUR; ARS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.178/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Anilkumar Hargovinbhai Patel, Chhral Bajidas no Vas, Nr. Garbi Chok, Kalol-382721. Gandhinagar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Mehsana. [PAN No.AUFPP3179G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nishit B Jesur, ARs Respondent by: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2024 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 05.12.2023 passed for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 05/12/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 by NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of total Rs. 9,47,63,780/- made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned addition. ITA No. 178/Ahd/2024 Anilkumar H Patel. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 2– 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in making the addition of total Rs. 9,47,63,780/- u/s. 69 of the Income tax Act. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal filed before him. The appellant must be granted an opportunity of being heard. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Ld. AO and appeal not admitted by the CIT(A) may please be deleted in the interest of natural justice and considering the facts of the case. 3. In this case, ex-parte orders have been passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) owing to absence of response by the assessee to the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities. Before us, the ld. AR argued that ld. CIT(A) has issued a letter to clarify the defects as mentioned in Section 249(4)(b) and the reply submitted by the assessee has not been considered and the ld. CIT(A) has not asked further to the appellant to submit any other reasons and summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR prayed that, given an opportunity, entire details would be submitted before the Assessing Officer and offered to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost incurred by the Government. Ld. DR argued that the assessee cannot shift the burden on the Revenue Authorities without complying to the notices in a proper way and hence no other opportunities can be given to the assessee. Having gone through the record, we find that ends of justice would be well served by remanding the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the submissions made by the assessee. The assessee shall produce receipt of payment of Rs.10,000/- paid to “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. ITA No. 178/Ahd/2024 Anilkumar H Patel. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 3– 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 10.12.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 10.12.2024 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क\u0007 \b\tत\u000bल\rप अ\u0010े\rषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. \u000bयथ\b / The Respondent. 3. संबं\u0010धत आयकर आयु\u0017त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0017त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. \u001aवभागीय \u001eत\u001eन\u0010ध, आयकर अपील!य अ\u0010धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील\u001eय अ\u001fधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 09.12.2024 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 09.12.2024 3. Other Member……09.12.2024…………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 09.12.2024 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 10.12.2024 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 10.12.2024 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10.12.2024 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "