Mukesh Sohanlal Manjkhola , Mumbai V. Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(2), Surat, Surat

ITA 814/SRT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6832 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 814/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year 2012-13) (Physical hearing) Mukesh Sohanlal Manjkhola, 49 101 Evershine Halley Towers, Thakur Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101 (Maharashtra) PAN No. AGVPM 2596 E Vs. I.T.O., Circle-3(2), Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rushi Parekh, C.A. Department represented by Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr.DR Appeal instituted on 29/11/2023 Date of hearing 30/05/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/05/2024 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 29/09/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ld AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 & 142(1) vide his notice dated 25.11.2019 and passed the assessment order on 30/11/2019, without giving reasonable time to the assessee, copy of notice ITA 814/Srt/2023 Mukesh Sohanlal Manjkhola Vs ITO 2 dated 25.11.2019 is placed on record. Further, the ld CIT(A) issued notice through ITBA portal on 20.09.2023, the assessee vide his application dated 26.09.2023 sought adjournment of 15 days, however the ld CIT(A) passed order on 29.09.2023, thus, the assessee was deprived from reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is given to assessee to contest its case on merit. The ld AR for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer. 3. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax –Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld SR DR for the revenue submits that despite allowing opportunity to the assessee the assessee failed to timely respond for compliances of notice of hearing. In alternative submissions, the ld Sr DR for revenue submits that, in case, the Bench is convinced that the assessee not given fair and reasonable opportunity, the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A), with the direction to assessee to be more vigilant in making compliance in time. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. We find that assessment was completed on 30/11/2019 under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by holding that various notices under Section 250 of the Act was served to the assessee to furnish all the details but the assessee has not complied the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A). on considering the submissions of ld AR for the assessee, which we have ITA 814/Srt/2023 Mukesh Sohanlal Manjkhola Vs ITO 3 recorded above, we find the assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without discussing the merit of the case. The order of ld. CIT(A) is not as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act mandate that the order of CIT(A) must be in writing containing the point for determination, decision thereon and reasons for such decision. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as principles of natural justice, we find that one more opportunity can be given to the assessee to represent his case, therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide all the issue afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reason and to furnish all the details and his submissions and evidences on various grounds of appeal raised by it, as soon as possible, if so desired without any further delay. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order announced in open court on 30th May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 30/05/2024 *Ranjan ITA 814/Srt/2023 Mukesh Sohanlal Manjkhola Vs ITO 4 Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. DR 5. Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat