Pritesh Patel, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2)(3), Surat

ITA 72/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8070 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.72/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Pritesh Patel, Limda – Faliya, Delad, Tal – Olpad, Surat – 394130 Vs. The ITO, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AYOPP0698M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mehul Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, 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 22.11.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 19.12.2017. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Act, as the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has also passed the ex parte order due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee. However, Ld. Counsel submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee Page | 2 ITA.72/SRT/2024/AY.2010-11 Pritesh Patel submitted adjournment application before the ld. CIT(A), but the ld. CIT(A) did not give the adjournment to the assessee filed documents and evidences, and passed the ex parte order which is against the principle of natural justice. The assessee sought adjournment on 14.11.2023 to submit details and documents before the ld. CIT(A) on 22.11.2023, however, on 22.11.2023, ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order without waiting for the reply from the assessee, hence it is against the principle of natural justice, therefore one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the lower authorities. 3. The Ld. Counsel also stated that since the order passed by the Assessing Officer is an ex parte order and Assessing Officer has not examined the basic facts of the assessee’s case, therefore matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) submitted that assessee is a habitual non-compliance, if the matter is remitted back to the file of the lower authorities, the heavy cost may be imposed on the assessee and the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjuration. 5. 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. We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer. 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 Page | 3 ITA.72/SRT/2024/AY.2010-11 Pritesh Patel 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 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. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 28/03/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 28/03/2024 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