MANSOOR BADRUDDIN DIWAN,JAMNAGAR V. .ITO, WARD 2(5), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 673/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mansoor Badruddin Diwan, the appellant, who contested an ex parte order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was also ex parte as the assessee failed to appear and submit required documents. The Tribunal noted the principles of natural justice and decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present his case, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper adjudication as mandated by section 250(6) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33870 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: S. R. LODHE
• 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, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 673/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Mansoor Badruddin Diwan Tin Batti, Beside Kalpana Hotel, Jamnagar-361001, Gujarat Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jamnagar èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACAPD9798G (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri S. R. Lodhe, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/12/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 01.03.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 30.12.2019. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is delay in filing of appeal by 128 days. For this delay Ld. Counsel filed an affidavit for condonation of delay dated 4th September, 2024, wherein it was stated that: I.T.A No. 673/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Mansoor Badruddin Diwan vs. ITO 2 “2. I am the appellant in the aforesaid appeal. The appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal has to be filed on or before 1.4.2024. I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances of this case, and am fully competent to make this affidavit. I am able to file the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. I also could not understand that time limit prescribed by the Act for filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. I say and submit that the delay occurred in filing the appeal is not motivated and intentional one.” We have heard the parties and observed that the assessee has satisfactory explained the delay caused in filing of appeal before this Tribunal which is not on account of negligence, therefore we condone the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal to be proceeded on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 144 of the Act (ex parte order). On appeal, before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear and could not submit the details and documents, therefore ld. CIT(A) has also passed the ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore contended that now the assessee is ready to submit details and documents before the lower authorities, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue argued that assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A), hence assessee should not be given further innings, therefore assessee’s appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We also note that I.T.A No. 673/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Mansoor Badruddin Diwan vs. ITO 3 assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. We 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 interest of justice, we 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, we 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. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-12-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 19/12/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar / Sr. PS ITAT, Rajkot "