RAKESH KUMAR, BHILAI,DURG V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 493/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals filed by the assessee, Rakesh Kumar, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The appeals were directed against the orders passed under various sections of the Income Tax Act, including sections 271A, 271B, 147, 144, and 271(1)(b). The primary contention raised by the assessee was the violation of the principle of natural justice, as the CIT(A) had passed orders before the compliance deadline set for the assessee to respond. The tribunal, acknowledging the procedural error, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 106753 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH SETHIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 271B

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 and 2015-16) आदेश / O R D E R Per bench: Captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, (in short “the Act”), passed on 20.09.2024, which in turn arises from the orders u/s 271A (dated 26.09.2022) & section 271B (dated 23.09.2022) for the AY 2014-15 and u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 (dated 25.03.2022) & 271(1)(b) (dated 30.08.2022) for the AY 2015-16, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai. Rakesh Kumar, Ward No. 36, Jagir Chowk, New Khursipar Bhilai, District: Durg- 490011, C.G. V S ITO Ward 2(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civic Center, Bhilai, 490006, C.G. (Through NFAC) PAN: BBTPK4928E (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) . . (Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent) िनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 13.12.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 2 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, assailing the impugned orders in all the aforesaid appeals are extracted as under: ITA No. 491/RPR/2024 3 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai ITA No. 492/RPR/2024 ITA No. 493/RPR/2024 4 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai ITA No. 494/RPR/2024 3. At the outset, referring to ground no. 1 of the respective appeals, it was the submission by Ld. Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee (in short “Ld. AR”), that during the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, there was a violation of principle of natural justice, as the Ld. CIT(A) himself after considering the adjournment request of the assessee, has permitted the assessee by issuance of a notice u/s 250 of the Act dated 18.09.2024 to furnish the written submission / response fixing the date for compliance on or before 30.09.2024. To substantiate such facts Ld. AR has furnished before us copies of notice u/s 250 of the Act dated 18.09.2024 for all the aforesaid cases, which are identical, showing that the assessee was allowed the time to furnish the response by 30.09.2024. Copy of one of these notices issued towards the 5 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai appeal assailing the order of Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity and reference: 6 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai 7 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai 4. Based on aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR argued that the aforesaid cases of assessee are decided by the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.09.2024, a date prior to the date i.e., 30.09.2024 up to which the assessee was allowed by the First Appellate Authority himself to make the necessary compliances. It was the submission that, passing of an order before the date of limitation up to which the assessee is supposed to furnish his response is clearly a violation of principle of natural justice, under such circumstances, the order of Ld. CIT(A) was erroneous and liable to be set aside. 5. Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue on the other hand vehemently relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A), however, have fairly admitted that in case, the matter is being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the revenue has no objection to the same. 6. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, in particular, the notice u/s 250 dated 18.09.2024 of the Act referred by the Ld. AR. Admittedly, the assessee was permitted to furnish his written submissions by 30.09.2024, however, the appellate order came to be passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.09.2024 i.e., on a date prior to the date which was informed to the assessee up to which he was allowed to furnished necessary 8 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai compliances. Passing of an order without waiting for the assessee’s compliances till the date up to which it was allowed, goes against the principle of natural justice and also does not indicate that fair opportunity of being heard was allowed to the appellant. In view of such circumstances, we find force in the contentions raised by the Ld. AR, thus, without adverting to the other contentions raised by the assessee in the present cases, as the adjudication by Ld. CIT(A) was without affording the reasonable opportunity to represent to the assessee, particularly, where the appellate order was passed before the due date up to which the assessee was having a lawful right to represent himself. Such action of the Ld. CIT(A) has divested the assessee from exercising his legitimate and bonafide rights for which he was entitled to. In sum and substance, considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, we deem it fit to restore these matters to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee as per law, in the set aside appellate proceedings. 8. In result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 16/12/2024 Vaibhav 9 ITA No. 491 to 494/RPR/2024 Rakesh Kumar vs ITO, Ward- 2 (1), Bhilai आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- Rakesh Kumar, Bhilai 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. The Pr. CIT -1, Raipur, (C.G.) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy // "