JITESHKUMAR VANDRAVAN BARAI,DWARKA V. ITO WARD 1, DWARKA, JAMNAGAR

ITA 605/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jiteshkumar Vandravan Barai against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed an assessment order by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order included an addition of Rs. 7,00,000 on account of cash payments to M/s V.M. Barai & Company during the assessment year 2015-16. Both the initial assessment and the appeal were conducted ex-parte, leading to the Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present his case adequately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26343 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH (SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.605/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Jiteshkumar Vandravan Barai, V.M. Baria & co., Okha High Way, Veraval, Dwarka-361335 (Gujarat) Vs. The I.T.O., Ward 1, Dwarka, Jamnagar. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABTPB 3826 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 17/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 13/06/2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 02/09/2021. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is delay of 04 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to situation beyond the control of the ITA 605/Rjt/2024 Jiteshkumar Vandravan Barai Vs ITO Page | 2 assessee. Therefore, the ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed the Bench to condone the delay, in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue has raised objection about condonation of delay and would submit that the assessee has not explained the delay in proper manner. Hence, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay. I find that the reasons given by the assessee are found to be convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing appeal, therefore, I condone the delay of 4 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On merit of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order by making addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of cash payments to M/s V.M. Barai & Company during the relevant assessment year. The ld. CIT(A), on appeal before him, confirmed the action taken by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, submits that both the lower authorities have passed orders in ex-parte proceedings. No sufficient and reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in complying the notices issued by the lower authorities. ITA 605/Rjt/2024 Jiteshkumar Vandravan Barai Vs ITO Page | 3 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. I find that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash payment to M/s V.M. Barai & Company during the relevant assessment year. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. I find that both the lower authorities have passed their orders in ex parte proceedings, therefore, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. I 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 interests of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer 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. Therefore, I 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 Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The assessee 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 assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. ITA 605/Rjt/2024 Jiteshkumar Vandravan Barai Vs ITO Page | 4 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 17/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date: 17/10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "