M/S. TIRUPATI AGRI BROKERS,RAJKOT V. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (4), RAJKOT

ITA 275/RJT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Tirupati Agri Brokers, a partnership firm engaged in brokerage of agro commodities, appealing against an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was based on an earlier order from the Assessing Officer. The dispute centered on an unaccounted sale amounting to Rs. 59,00,300 received from M/s Yash Enterprise, which the AO treated as unaccounted income, adding Rs. 17,33,508 to the appellant's income. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order as the appellant failed to respond to multiple notices. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present their case, leading to the decision to remand the case for a new hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470457 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA; LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.275/RJT/2023-A.Y. 2015-16 Tirupati Agri Brokers vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.275/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Tirupati Agri Brokers. 603, Kings Plaza, Astron Chowk, Rajkot- 360001. Vs. The ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACFT7925R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21/01/2025 PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: 1. Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “The Ld. CIT(A)”] vide his order dated 29/05/2023 which inter arises out of order passed by the Assessing Officer [in short, “The Ld. AO”] vide order dated-11/12/2017. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellant is partnership firm and engaged in the business of Brokerage in the line of Agro Commodities. Return of income declaring total income of Rs 6,35,590/- was e-filed on 30/09/2015. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and therefore, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT. Act, were issued to the appellant. In response to the notices, the appellant made a reply. The appellant has submitted requisite details of the business activities. Further, notice u/s. 142(1) and show-cause notice were again ITA No.275/RJT/2023-A.Y. 2015-16 Tirupati Agri Brokers vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot. issued to the appellant to which Shri Bhavesh Pabari, C.A, an Authorized Representative of the assessee attended from time to time on behalf of the assessee and the case was discussed with him. Since the appellant failed to provide any plausible explanation of Rs. 59,00,300/-received from Shri Chetan Bhalodiya Prop of M/s Yash Enterprise, the AO added treated the amount as unaccounted sale of the appellant and made an addition of Rs.17,33,508/-, to the total income of the appellant, which works out to Rs.17,33,508/-. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) issued notices for hearing u/s.250 of the I T Act dated 23.01.2021, 31.10.2022 and 03.05.2023 to the appellant. In response to the same, the appellant did not filed any submission. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed and ex-parte order dated 26.05.2023 as the assessee failed to reopened various notice issued for hearing. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee prays that one more opportunity to represent the case before lower authority may kindly be granted to the assessee. Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating that due opportunities were given to the assessee. However, Ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the prayer of the assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties and perusal the records available, we note that assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A) because notices were only sent not served on assessee. We also note that assessee has appeared before the Ld. AO and furnished all the documents. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient "