Shree Khodal Cot Gin P. Ltd., Chanol Fatehpar, Tal. Padadhari, Dist. Rajkot V. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (4), Rajkot

ITA 30/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7031 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; 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 DIESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.30/RJT/2023 ( नधा रणवष / Assessment Year: (2016-17) Shree Khodal Cot Gin Private Limited Survey No. 1/2/1, Chanol Fatepar Bypass, Hadmatiya Road, Fatepar, Padadhari, Rajkot-360001 Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AASCS2250B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, AR Respondent by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUL LAL SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17, is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centre) vide order dated 14.12.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], vide, order dated 17.12.2018. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the appellate proceedings, the notices of hearing were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), and Page | 2 ITA No.30/RJT/2023 Shree Khodal Cot Gin P. Ltd. vs. ITO as a result, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel stated that assessee had filed an appeal before Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2. Rajkot. Later on, the appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "NFAC"]. The NFAC had issued hearing notices on mail ID '[e-mail]". However, the assessee had while filing Form No.35 stated mail ID as: "[e-mail]". Therefore, the assessee did not receive any hearing notices. The assessee had fully co-operated in assessment proceedings by providing all the corroborative evidences and explanations. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without considering submissions made by the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requests the Bench to grant one more opportunity, by setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the e-mail ID mentioned in the Form No. 35 is a correct e-mail ID and notices for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A), should have been delivered to the assessee. However, the assessee is making a lame excuse that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been served on the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has provided enough opportunities to the assessee and has sent six notices for hearing, despite of this, the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. DR contended that if the Bench remits the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), then in that circumstances, heavy cost should be imposed on the assessee, as the assessee was negligent and did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that during appellate proceedings, notices of hearing were not served on the assessee, on the e-mail ID provided by the assessee, Page | 3 ITA No.30/RJT/2023 Shree Khodal Cot Gin P. Ltd. vs. ITO therefore, assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merit as per the mandate of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. That is, the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer, as the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the assessee could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out under Section 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, considering the above facts, we are of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 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 is pronounced in the open court on 28/05/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot / दनांक/ Date: 28/05/2024 True Copy Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat0 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot