BHAVIN HARSUKHLAL CHANDRANI,VERAVAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-5, VERAVAL

ITA 258/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bhavin Harsukhlal Chandrani, the assessee, who appealed against an ex parte order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2017-18 and was directed against an assessment order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the Assessing Officer. The primary contention of the assessee was the violation of the principle of natural justice, as he was not served a notice of hearing and thus could not represent his case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal, acknowledging the procedural oversight, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, ensuring that the assessee is given a fair opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473099 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" Page | 1 ITA No. 258/RJT/2024 - AY.2017-18 Bhavin Harsukhlal Chandrani vs. ITO 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 No.258/RJT/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavin Harsukhlal Chandrani Shri Jalaram Krupa, Raghuvir Nagar, Behind Chandra Mauleshwar Mandir, 80 Feet Road, Veraval - 362265 Vs. The Income-tax Officer Ward-4, Veraval-Junagadh èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ATCPC1980A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 03/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT(A), Thane [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 06.03.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 27.11.2019. Page | 2 ITA No. 258/RJT/2024 - AY.2017-18 Bhavin Harsukhlal Chandrani vs. ITO 2. At the outset, Learned 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. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) as the notice of hearing was not served on the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee and stated that if the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), then it should be ensured that assessee should make the compliance of notices and should file the relevant documents and details before Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not submit details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. We note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A) and also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. That is, Ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the entire material available on record. Hence, we are of the view that 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. Page | 3 ITA No. 258/RJT/2024 - AY.2017-18 Bhavin Harsukhlal Chandrani vs. ITO 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. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 07/10/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 07/10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "