JAGDISH DAYABHAI GUJARIYA,ANJAR V. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, J.A.O.- ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 494/RJT/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Jagdish Dayabhai Gujariya against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was dated 13/05/2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The appellant contested that his appeal was dismissed ex parte without a fair hearing, as notices were not served timely. The respondent argued that the appellant was casual in his approach during the appellate proceedings. The tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26359 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 494/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Jagdish Dayabhai Gujariya, Village-Bitavaldiya, Anjar-370110. Vs. The I.T.O., NFAC, Delhi. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BBRPG 0315 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER: DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: This is an appeal filed by the appellant arises against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”] dated 13/05/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Rival contentions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of appellant in an ex parte proceeding without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The ld. AR of the appellant submits that notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were not served ITA 494/Rjt/2024 Jagdish Dayabhai Gujariya. Vs ITO Page | 2 on time. The appellant has no malafide intentional about non- compliance of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the appellant submits that the appellant has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided to appellant to contest his case on merit. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is not as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR of the appellant prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merit and he undertakes on behalf of appellant to be more vigilant in future in complying the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue has raised objection on the prayer of appellant for remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) and would submit that the appellant’s approach was casual during the appellate proceedings and the appellant has failed to comply with the various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appellant does not deserve any leniency at this stage and the appeal may be dismissed. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has issued four notices/communications dated 22/01/2023, 11/04/2023, 23/04/2024 and 30/04/2024 to the appellant but no response/compliance has been filed by the appellant. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of appellant by holding that no evidence or submission has been made to prove the claims of the appellant and the appellant has not interested to pursue its case. The ld. counsel for the appellant stated that before the Assessing Officer, the appellant submitted relevant documents and evidences, however, on appeal during ITA 494/Rjt/2024 Jagdish Dayabhai Gujariya. Vs ITO Page | 3 the appellate proceedings, notices were not delivered on the appellant, so the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. We find from perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the order of ld. CIT(A) is not as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. 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, in the interests of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The appellant is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The appellant is also directed to submit all the documents, evidences and replies as soon as possible without any further delay. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only. 5. In the result, this appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 18/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date: 18/10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) ITA 494/Rjt/2024 Jagdish Dayabhai Gujariya. Vs ITO Page | 4 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "