KAMLESHKUMAR D DHOLAKIYA, PALSANA V. JCIT, RANGE-2(3), SURAT

ITA 77/SRT/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2586 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2021
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 271D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.77/SRT/2020 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kamleshkumar D. Dholakiya, Sainath Society, Nr. Sardar Complex, Vododara, Palsana, Surat-395305. Vs. The JCIT, Range-2(3), Surat. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIKPD0549B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA Revenue by: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 14/12/2021 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], Surat in Appeal No. CIT(A), Surat-1/11782 /2018-19 dated 05.02.2020, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 28.09.2016. 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel submits that during appellate proceedings the ld. CIT(A) has sent notices for hearing on wrong address, therefore, notices for hearings could not serve on assessee. The ld. Counsel pointed out that in address; the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned “Vododara” instead of “Kadodara”, therefore notices could not serve on assessee and as a result the assessee could not plead his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel Page | 2 ITA No.77/SRT/2020 Assessment Year. 2008-09 Kamleshkumar D Dholakiya prays that an another opportunity to represent the case before first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. 3. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully 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. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 14/12/2021 by placing result on notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat / Ǒदनांक/ Date: 14/12/2021 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