Indravadan Anantrai Vora, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, DLC-WX-(272)(1), Exemption Ward, Surat

ITA 813/SRT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2655 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RUSHI PAREKH
• Keywords: 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.813/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Indravadan Anantrai Vora, 35, Narmad Nagar Society, Opp. Surat Tennis Club, Athwalince, Surat - 395007 Vs. The ITO, DLC-WX(272)(1), Exemption Ward èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATI0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rushi Parekh, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement 05/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, 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 28.09.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 15.03.2023. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 is barred by limitation by 1 day. The assessee moved a petition, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing appeal for 1 day may be condoned. Page | 2 ITA.813/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Indravadan Anantrai Vora 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and having regard to the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay, we condone the minor delay of 1 day and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing. 5. On merit, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal stating that assessee has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) did not admit the assessee’s appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel contended that since the assessee has not filed the return of income, hence there is no question of paying the advance tax, further the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Act and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not make the compliance, therefore Assessing Officer passed the ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) has examined the documents and evidences on merit, therefore Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that assessee now is ready to submit the documents and evidences before the ld. CIT(A), therefore one more opportunity should be given to the assesse to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A), hence matter may be remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Page | 3 ITA.813/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Indravadan Anantrai Vora 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue stated that the assessee was negligent and did not pay the advance tax, therefore relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. We have head both the parties. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee did not file return of income and assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Act, first time, hence assessee need not to pay advance tax. 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. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case 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. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Page | 4 ITA.813/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Indravadan Anantrai Vora Order is pronounced on 05/03/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 05/03/2024 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