G S Infraport Private Limited, Gandhidham V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gandhidham

ITA 279/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7088 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

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. 279/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) G S In fra p o rt Pvt . L td . Gan dh idh a m Vs. T he AC IT , C irc l e -1 , Gan dh idh am थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./P AN/G I R No . : AADCG8890J (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) नधा रतीक ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, AR राज वक ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR स ु नवाईक तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणाक तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2016-17, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’), vide order dated 8 th June, 2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessment year u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.11.2018. 2. At the outset, Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the notices of hearing were I.T.A No. 279/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 G S Infraport Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2 not served on the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and consequently the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. The ld. Counsel also stated that all the details, documents and evidences were furnished before the assessing officer and the assessing officer framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-11-2018, therefore, ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered these documents and evidences submitted before the assessing officer (AO) for adjudication on merit. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merit inspite of the fact that assessee has submitted entire details and documents before the AO. Therefore, ld. Counsel contended that order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order on merit and hence the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, for this, ld. Counsel also relied on the following judgments: (1). Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Sarniti Ltd. vs. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 320 (Lucknow - Trib.) (2). Alpha Heavy Engineering (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 324 (Mumbai - Trib.) (3). Bellamane Narayan Shridhar vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 647 (Karnataka) (4). Prime ABGB (P.) Ltd. vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre Income- tax Department, New Delhi (5). Chittibabu Dinakaran vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Income [2022] 139 taxmann.com 543 (Madras) income tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi I.T.A No. 279/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 G S Infraport Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3 (6). Dinesh Sharma vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1555 (Jaipur - Trib.) (7). Farhan Majid Dar vs. ITO [2024] 162 taxmann.com 470 (Amritsar - Trib.) 3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has given three opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), therefore, assessee’s appeal may be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find 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. Therefore, in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. We note that ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order without considering the assessee’s case on merit. The assessee has submitted entire details and documents before the assessing officer (AO) and assessment order is framed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we note that ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue, should have considered the assessee’s statement of facts and the documents furnished by the assessee before the AO, to adjudicate the issue on merit. However, we note that ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the issue on merit, as per the mandate of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We also note that during the appellate proceedings, notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to I.T.A No. 279/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 G S Infraport Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 4 the assessee to plead his case before ld. CIT(A). 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, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-05-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 22/05/2024 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Rajkot