IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.652/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Shashikant Manakchand Bagrecha, 5-B-24, Vigyan Nagar, Kota – 324005, Rajasthan Vs. The ITO, Ward – 1(3)(5), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACHPB9096N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement 20/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, 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 31.08.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 02.12.2019. 2. At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee sought adjournment on dated 15.08.2023 to file details and documents before the ld. CIT(A), however, ld. CIT(A) without giving opportunity to the assessee passed the order on 31.08.2023 which is against the principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel also argued that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not submit the entire documents Page | 2 ITA.652/SRT/2023/AY.2012-13 Shashikant Manakchand Bagrecha and details; therefore matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue objected that since the assessee was negligent during the appellate proceedings, therefore further innings should not be given to the assessee, hence 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 and assessee’s submission. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. 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 merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we 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, 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 Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. Page | 3 ITA.652/SRT/2023/AY.2012-13 Shashikant Manakchand Bagrecha 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 20/03/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 20/03/2024 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