Dipak Champaklal Chevli, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(1), Surat

ITA 374/SRT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Dipak Champaklal Chevli, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was initially barred by limitation but was admitted after the Tribunal condoned the delay due to a medical emergency faced by the assessee. The core issue was the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the assessee's submissions, leading to an ex parte order, which the Tribunal found to be against the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301476 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT (SMC) BENCH BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.374/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Dipak Champaklal Chevli, B. No.13, Vijay Nagar Co. Op. Society, Majura Gate, Surat – 395001. Vs. The ITO, Ward – 2(2)(1), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABMPC1808M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Bipin Jariwala, AR Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 08/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 17.03.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 29.12.2017. 2. I note that appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 is barred by limitation by nine (9) days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The ld Counsel explained the reasons of delay stating that due to medical emergency, Page | 2 ITA.374/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Dipak Champaklal Chevli the assessee made delay in delivering the papers and documents to his advocate to file the appeal and to support this, the ld Counsel submitted medical bills/prescription etc before the Bench. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone this minor delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has participated and filed the details and documents against the notice of the ld. CIT(A), dated 13.03.2023. However, ld. CIT(A) did not consider the same for adjudication on merit and passed the ex parte order, which is against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of Ld. Counsel and stated that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 5. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted details and documents before the ld CIT(A), however, I note that ld CIT(A) did not consider the details and documents submitted by assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, I note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I also note that ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record. Hence, I am of the view that one more Page | 3 ITA.374/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Dipak Champaklal Chevli opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I 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. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 08/09/2023 in the open court. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 08/09/2023 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat