Balubhai Kikabhai Patel, Umbergaon V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi

ITA 82/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8069 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 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: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

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.82/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Balubhai Kikabhai Patel, At – Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergaon, 396105, Gujarat Vs. The DCIT, Vapi èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AKQPP2563H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms Chaitali Shah, 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) 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 28.11.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21.04.2021. 2. At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not receive the notice of hearing. The assessee furnished e-mail id in Form No.35, on the same e-mail id the assessee could not get the notice of hearing during the appellate proceedings, however notices were sent on other e-mail id by ld. CIT(A), therefore assessee could not attend the Page | 2 ITA.82/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Balubhai Kikabhai Patel appellate proceedings and as a result the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has submitted Form No.35 before ld. CIT(A), however the statement of facts narrated in Form No.35 has not been considered by ld. CIT(A), therefore one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue argued that assessee was negligent during the appellate proceedings, therefore second inning should not be given to the assessee and appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. Alternatively, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue argued that if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) that in that circumstances heavy cost should be imposed on the assessee. 4. 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. 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. Page | 3 ITA.82/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Balubhai Kikabhai Patel 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. 5. In the result, appeal of 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