Surajit Chandra Baruah, Guwahati V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

ITA 242/GTY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1051 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: UTTAM KUMAR BORTHAKUR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 10; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 242/GTY/2019 Surajit Chandra Baruah AY 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH, (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) [BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. No. 242/GTY/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Surajit Chandra Baruah 1 st Floor, Amelya Bhawan, 3A, P.B. Road, Rehabari, Guwahati, Kamrup, Assam- 781008. (PAN: ACNPB 4786 F) Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Guwahati Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 25.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.08.2022 For the Appellant Shri Uttam Kumar Borthakur, Advocate For the Respondent Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-1 dated 22.03.2019 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-1, Guwahati [“CIT(A)” for short hereafter] has erred in law and in fact, in dismissing the appeal in limine and in confirming the additions/disallowances challenged before him, by holding that the appellant was not aggrieved with the assessment order and he was not interested in prosecuting the same. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be directed ti disposes of the appeal on merit after allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact, in confirming the addition of Rs. 63,04,370/- to the returned income of the appellant in any view of the matter without allowing proper opportunity of being heard. 2 ITA No. 242/GTY/2019 Surajit Chandra Baruah AY 2016-17 3. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact, in making such observations and in issuing such directions to the learned Assessing Officer as contained in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the impugned order that are not maintainable in law in any view of the matter and liable to be quashed. 4. For that the appellant begs leave of putting forward additional ground/grounds in addition to modification/substitution of the above ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee is an individual filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 and assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 18.12.2018 passed by the AO. For the year under consideration, the assessee had returned a total income of Rs. 17,66,950/-. However, the AO completed the assessment by determining the total income at Rs. 80,71,320/- by disallowing exemption u/s 10 in respect of agricultural income. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the same was dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that: “The appellant has no record on knowledge of ever receiving the physical copy of the notices in its address. No notice was received in the e-mail address also as ascertained later by the office staff. Except the mail containing the order under section 250 served on 05.04.2019, the inbox and spam folders do not contain any communication from the office of the ld. CIT(A). However, it is seen from the information in the ITD portal that the notice was mailed to the email id which was the address mentioned in Form 35. For reasons not known to the appellant, he did not receive the said mail containing the notices referred to above. The fact remains that the appellant was unaware of the said notices fixing the dates of hearing.” 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order passed by the authorities below. 3 ITA No. 242/GTY/2019 Surajit Chandra Baruah AY 2016-17 7. We, after hearing the rival submission of the party and material available on record, we are going to decide the issue no. 1. Since this issue goes roots of the case, as going through the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), it reveals that the assessee did not get any notice at the time of hearing of the case before the ld. CIT(A) and appeal of the assessee was decided ex-parte and as such assessee did not get any opportunity to file the necessary documents and as such one more opportunity allowed to assessee for the ends of justice and remand back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the direction to the assessee to furnish necessary details if any as and when called for and should not take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced in the open court on 02.08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Sonjoy Sarma) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: .08.2022 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant– Surajit Chandra Baruah. 2. Respondent – DCIT, Circle-1, Guwahati. 3. CIT(A), 4. CIT , 5. DR, ITAT, Guwahati. True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata