Hitesh V Vaghasiya (HUF), Surat V. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(7), Surat

ITSSA 40/SRT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9870 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: IS AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.40/SRT/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI HITESH V VAGHASIYA (HUF), A/203, PARSHWA DARSHAN COMPLEX, OPP.NAVYUG COLLEGE, RANDER ROAD, SURAT 395 009. [PAN: AADHH 0027 H ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, SURAT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ASSESSEE BY SHRI NITIN GHEEWALA CA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI SREENIVAS T.BIDARI SR. CIT - DR. DATE OF HEARING 0 3 .0 5 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 3 .05.2019 2 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. SR. DR. DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER, WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IT IS AN ERRONEOUS APPROACH. AFTER READING SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, WE ARE ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEES CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS, WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DONE. HOWEVER, IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE SPEAKING ONE. IN THIS REGARD, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE M/S SAHARA INDIA (FARMS) VS. CIT & ANR. IN [2008] 300 ITR 403 WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3 5.1 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03-05-2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/05/2019 GANGADHAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR / / TRUE COPY / / ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT