Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4598 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-05-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
23-05-2023
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
06-02-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 56/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Jaswinder Singh Vill. Kalanjarth Utarh Patti, Tarn Taran [PAN: ABUPU 1363M] (Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Amritsar (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CA Respondent by Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.12.2022 in respect of AY 2011-12 challenging therein the order I.T.A. No. 56/Asr/2023 Jaswinder Singh v. ITO 2 passed ex-parte qua the assessee u/s 250 without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the NFAC has erred on facts and law in confirming the finding of the AO given in the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act ex-parte qua the assessee without giving proper opportunity of being heard. He contended that the appellant is a poor agriculturist having no other sources of income than the agriculture. The ld. CIT(A) has mentioned vide para 9 of the impugned order that the appellant was provided one opportunity after the other which led to an ex-parte order in the end. Thereby confirming the ex- parte order passed by the AO u/s 144 is being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR stands by the impugned order. 4. Having heard the rival contention, perusal of record and the impugned order, we find that both the lower authorities have passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee. It is evident from the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) has specifically mentioned that the appellant was provided one opportunity after the other which led to an ex-parte order in the end without deciding the appeal on merits of the case against the ex-parte I.T.A. No. 56/Asr/2023 Jaswinder Singh v. ITO 3 assessment order u/s 144. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the factum of the issue of notices to the assessee but he has not mentioned the factum of service of notice upon the assessee which makes it apparently clear that the appellant assessee has not been served the notices issued. Meaning thereby that adequate opportunity of being heard has not been granted by either of the authorities below. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to be remanded back to the file of the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. The assessee is directed to co- operate in the fresh proceedings before the Assessing Officer. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. I.T.A. No. 56/Asr/2023 Jaswinder Singh v. ITO 4 True Copy By Order
AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by Sh. Jaswinder Singh against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the AO's ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-12. The appellant, a poor agriculturist, contested that he was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, which led to the ex-parte order. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) acknowledged the issuance of notices but failed to confirm their service, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.
