Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Riopar V. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

ITA 92/CHANDI/2021

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana against the order of the PCIT, Chandigarh, which was passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT had set aside an earlier order of the Assessing Officer, claiming it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, as it was passed without proper enquiries. The main contention in the appeal was the lack of a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard before the PCIT passed the ex-parte order. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance and decided to set aside the PCIT's order, remanding the matter back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115346 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.92/CHD/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana 93-KILN Area Nagal, Ropar, Punjab v. The Pr. CIT-I Chandigarh PAN:AESPK7126B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 02 03 2023 Date of pronouncement: 02 03 2023 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh, dated 26.3.2021 for the Assessment Year 2015-16, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Vide Ground no.1.8, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. PCIT has erred on facts in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. The ld. D.R. has placed reliance on the order of the ld. PCIT. 4. Heard. We find that the ld. PCIT has passed the order under section 263 of the Act, setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer dated 12.10.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, observing that the order passed by him is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and has been passed without making proper enquiries. We also find from the order of the ld. PCIT that in response to the notices issued by the ld. PCIT, the assessee filed replies through ITBA Portal, but in response to notices dated 23.2.2021 and 9.3.2021, none appeared nor any adjournment application has been moved on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. PCIT passed an ex-parte order under section 263 of the Act qua the assessee. In this view of the matter, we feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to explain his case before the ld. PCIT. We are of the view, from the facts of the case, that the assessee has not been given proper and sufficient opportunity before passing the order under section 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the ld. PCIT and restore the matter to his file with the direction to consider and decide the matter afresh, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order, on affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. PCIT. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/03/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ]VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:02/03/2023 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar