SHRI RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR V. ASSISTANT COMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

ITA 150/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Raj Kumar against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was initially filed with a short delay, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without adequately considering the submissions made by the appellant before the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer without proper consideration of the details submitted, and that the mandatory legal requirements for invoking provisions of sections 69A and 68 of the Income Tax Act were not met. The Tribunal noted the principles of natural justice and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114551 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Egis international S.A. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1663/Del/2021)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Raj Kumar, Street No. 15, Last Chowk Abohar 152 116, Punjab [PAN: AHDPK 6214C] (Appellant) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT- DR 13.09.2023 15.09.2023 ORDER 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 16.03.2023 in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 ITA No. 150/Asr/2023 Raj Kumar v. Asstt. CIT 2. There was a short delay of 4 days in filing the appeal was requested to be condoned and to allow the appeal on merits. The ld. DR has no objection to the request of condonation of short delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the short delay of 4 days is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee merely stating vide para 5.3 that the appellant has been offered sufficient and reasonable opportunity to present his case. However, the appellant has been negligent to pursue this appeal. The counsel further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer without considering the details submission filed before the AO (APB Pg. 1 to 35). The counsel argued that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in arbitrary manner while upholding the validity of the assessment order particularly when the ld. AO failed to discharge mandatory and legal requirement for invoking provisions of section 69A and 68 of the Act. He further argued that the ld. CIT(A) has not even issued show cause notice for taking adverse view against the appellant assessee is violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. 3 ITA No. 150/Asr/2023 Raj Kumar v. Asstt. CIT CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh by taking a lenient and holistic view considering the fact that the assessee being illiterate and had no means and knowledge and had not access to electronic communication mode. In support he placed reliance on the case law on the issue that lack of knowledge of electronic services of notice is a sufficient cause, for non compliance as under: “That Delhi Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Egis international S.A. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1663/Del/2021) A.Y. 2016-17, vide order Dt. 03.08.2023, while dealing with the identical facts has restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee because it was brought on record before the Hon’ble Bench that the notices sent to the e-mail of the employee did not reach the assessee and the non-compliance was not deliberate.” 4. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the impugned order, contending that the sufficient opportunities of hearing have been granted to the appellant assessee. However, he has no objection in restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity in view of principles of natural justice. : 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte qua the assessee by merely stating that the appellant has granted sufficient and reasonable opportunity to represent his 4 ITA No. 150/Asr/2023 Raj Kumar v. Asstt. CIT case, however, the appellant has been negligent to pursue this appeal before him. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant assessee in limine without deciding the matter on merits of the case particularly ignoring the submissions filed before the Assessing Officer (APB Pg. 1 to 35) in view of principles of natural justice. We consider it deem fit to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on the issues raised by the appellant assessee after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard and considering the material evidence filed on record and to be filed in the course of afresh proceedings. At the same time, the appellant assessee is directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings by attending and filing the requisite information in compliance to the queries raised by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* 5 ITA No. 150/Asr/2023 Raj Kumar v. Asstt. CIT Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order