Shri Mukesh J. Pandya, Surendranagar V. The ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar, Surendranagar

ITA 451/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0916 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT (SMC) BENCH BEFORE DR. A. L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.451/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Mukesh J. Pandya, 11, Chandranagar Society, Near Ankur School, Surendranagar, Gujarat – 380005. Vs. The ITO, Ward – 3, Surendranagar थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIUPP4362J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Respondent by Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, 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’), dated 05.10.2023, 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 27.12.2019. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is barred by limitation by 23 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee explained this minor delay verbally and also filed a petition for condonation of delay and Page | 2 ITA.451/Rjt/2023/AY.2017-18 Mukesh J. Pandya stated that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not get the show-cause notice of Ld. CIT(A), and after passing the order by Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not get the order of Ld. CIT(A) on time, therefore minor delay of 23 days has occurred. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee has explained the sufficient cause, therefore in the interests of justice, delay should be condoned. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer for condonation of delay of the assessee and argued that assessee failed to explain the sufficient cause, hence the delay should not be condoned. 4. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that assessee could not get the appellate order on time and therefore this minor delay has occurred. I find that the reasons explained by the assessee would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filling this appeal. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-service of notices. Learned Counsel also pointed out that during the assessment proceedings also, the assessee submitted only part details before Assessing Officer and assessee was not able to submit entire details and documents, as these documents and details were not readily available when the assessment proceedings were going on. Therefore, now the assessee is willing to submit remaining documents and details before the Assessing Officer, therefore, Learned Counsel for the Page | 3 ITA.451/Rjt/2023/AY.2017-18 Mukesh J. Pandya assessee contended that the matter should be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that in spite of giving lot of opportunities during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not submitted relevant documents and details. Besides, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted part details only, therefore, Ld. Sr. DR contended that if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer then it should be ensured that assessee should appear before the Assessing Officer and file the relevant documents and details as and when required by the Assessing Officer. 7. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. 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. I also find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not appear before Assessing Officer, and did not file the require documents and details before the Assessing Officer. However, Learned Counsel argued before me that now assessee is ready to submit required documents and details before Assessing Officer. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. 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 Page | 4 ITA.451/Rjt/2023/AY.2017-18 Mukesh J. Pandya deeper into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer 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 Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 16/07/2024 in the open court. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot दनांक/ Date: 16/07/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File // TRUE COPY // By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot