Shri Prakash Modi, Jodhpur V. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

ITA 16/JODH/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4824 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANOOP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KOTHARI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.16/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Prakash Modi D-128, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur [PAN: ADQPM6554J] (Appellant) Vs. Asstt. Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jodhpur. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amit Kothari, CA. Respondent by Sh. Anoop Singh, ADDL. CIT Date of Hearing 22.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.02.2024 ORDER Per: Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT, Appeal/NFAC, Delhi {in brevity the CIT(A)}, order dated 20.01.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17arising out of the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.12.2018 by the ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur, challenging therein the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte qua the assessee in violation to the principles of natural justice and without appreciating the merit of the case. I.T.A. No.16/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee summarily by mentioning that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities and thus, appeal is being decided on basis of fact available on the record. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts narrated in the replies filed by the appellant assessee before the AO as per assessment order dated 23.11.2023 (APB page nos. 1 to 59).The ld. AR argued that the ld. CIT(A) has merely mentioned that the fact mentioning in Form No. 35 cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence ignoring the aforesaid paper book containing computation of income and financial statement being submitted before the ld. AO on 22.12.2018 and 14.12.2018 with supporting annexure besides submissions regarding short term and long term shares & securities, capital account and interest drawing accounts which are vital documents to decide the issue raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR has contended that the non speaking order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. He pleaded that the matter may be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after granting adequate opportunity of being heard & after considering the facts of the case and written submission filed by the appellant assessee. I.T.A. No.16/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 3 3. Per contra, the ld. DR has supported the impugned order. However, he failed to rebut the contention raised by the assessee. Accordingly, has no objection to the request of the ld. AR. 4. We heard the rival contention, perused the material available in the record. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte qua the assessee, rejecting its appeal merely stating that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granting several opportunities and so this appeal decided based on facts available on record. However, these observations are self-contradictory as he has neither referred to the appellants submission e filed before assessing officer nor the finding of the assessing officer while rejecting the submission of the assessee (APB, Pgs. 1 to 59).We are therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is nonspeaking order as being passed in mechanical and arbitrary manner without addressing the issues raised on merits of the case. 5. In view of the principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the written submissions of the appellant assessee filed on the record after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to issue a show cause before passing the order, on the adverse view, if any, he intends against the assessee. The assessee is also I.T.A. No.16/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 4 directed to cooperate in the fresh appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) in compliance to the query raised by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the mater as per law. Before parting with the matter, it is clarified that the bench has not express any view on the merits of the case and hence the ld. CIT(A) is free to adjudicate the grounds of appeal afresh independently as per law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 16/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.02.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (Dr. M. L. Meena ) Judicial Member Accountant Member AKV (On Tour) Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order