IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.552/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Vasudev Babubhai Kapadia, 38/B, Pragati Bunglows, Opp: Shardayatan School, Near Kargil Chowk, Piplod, Surat - 395007 Vs. The ITO, Ward – 1(2)(1), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGEPK9257B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Uday P. Nanavati, CA Respondent by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 29/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, 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 25.01.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 18.02.2021. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, notice of hearing were not delivered on the assessee and therefore assessee could not represent his case before ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that one more Page | 2 ITA.552/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Vasudev Babubhai Kapadia opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue submitted that assessee’s attitude was negligent during the appellate proceedings and instead of giving sufficient opportunities, the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and could not file the documents and evidences before the ld. CIT(A), therefore appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the parties. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We 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, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). We 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, we 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, 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. Page | 3 ITA.552/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Vasudev Babubhai Kapadia 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 29/02/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 29/02/2024 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