Lok Bharti Mandal, Surat V. Income Tax Officer,Exemption Ward, Surat

ITA 235/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9835 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2018
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 235/SRT/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 LOK BHARTI MANDAL, ASHOK PAN-NI-GALI, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT 395 007. [PAN: AAATL 2524 Q] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-3, SURAT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND:- APPELLANT ALTERNATIVELY SUBMITS THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS EXPARTE. ASSESSEE BY SHRI H.R.VEPARI CA DEPARTMENT BY SMT.ANUPAMA SINGLA SR.DR. DATE OF HEARING 01.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.05.2019 2 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER AND THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION OF NEW FACTS, HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. LD. SR. DR. DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ALSO PERUSED THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER AND THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION OF NEW FACTS, HENCE, THE SAME IS ADMITTED. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER, BUT IN OUR OPINION IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IT IS AN ERRONEOUS APPROACH. AFTER READING SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, WE ARE ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEES CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS, WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DONE. HOWEVER, IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE SPEAKING ONE. IN THIS REGARD, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE M/S SAHARA INDIA (FARMS) VS. CIT & ANR. IN [2008] 300 ITR 403 WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN 3 HELD THAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5.1 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 26.06.2019 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY BEEN INFORMED, THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01-05-2019 . SD/- SD/- (O.P. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 01/05/2019 SRB/GANGADHAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR / / TRUE COPY / / ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT