Gagajibhai Mepabhai Bharvad, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat, Surat

ITA 79/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3210 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 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: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH K. KABRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 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.79/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Gagajbhai Mepabhai Bharvad, House No.34, Ward No.6, Gokul Nagar, Bharvadvas, Bhatar, Surat – 395017, Gujarat Email: [e-mail] Vs. The ITO, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AXBPB8574A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28/03/2024 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) 2017-18, 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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 11.10.2019. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for AY.2017-18 is barred by limitation by 2 days. The assessee has explained the reasons for this minor delay, stating that such delay has been occurred due to Page | 2 ITA.79/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Gagajbhai Mepabhai Bharvad miscalculation of period where filing the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore such minor delay may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue argued that there is a delay in filing the appeal for 2 days which should not be condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that in real sense, there is no delay in filing the appeal, however such delay of 2 days has occurred in the process of filing the appeal online and such delay was not intentional, but due to technical glitches while filing the appeal, hence such minor delay may be condoned by the Bench in the interest of justice. 5. Having heard both the parties and taking into account the reasons explained by the Ld. Counsel, we condone the delay of 2 days and admit the appeal of assessee for hearing. 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, notices of hearing were not received by the assessee, therefore the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings and as a result the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that there was a non-compliance before the Assessing Officer also and the assessee has not furnished the entire details and documents before the Assessing Officer, therefore the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment order under section 144 of the Act. Such basic documents and details of the assessee have not been examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment stage, Page | 3 ITA.79/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Gagajbhai Mepabhai Bharvad therefore the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee is a habitual non-compliant as the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as before ld. CIT(A) also, therefore appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 8. Alternatively, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer, in that circumstances heavy cost should be imposed on the assessee. 9. 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 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 Page | 4 ITA.79/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Gagajbhai Mepabhai Bharvad 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