2019 (6) TMI 1701 - AT - Income Tax

Setting Aside Ex Parte Order for Fresh Consideration: Emphasis on Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice Principles

M/s Shri Ram Borewell & Construction Company, Versus A.C.I.T., Circle- Sikar.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and directed a fresh consideration on merits, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to ... CIT(A) passed ex parte order - Mandation for CIT-A to give speaking order in writing giving reasons for reaching to the conclusion - HELD THAT:- We found that on all three occasions, the assessee has requested for adjournment and the same was granted. The reasons for adjournment appear to be reasonable and justified. It is also clear from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that within two months from the first date fixed for hearing, he decided the appeal by dismissing the same. Even final opportunity was not given by the ld. CIT(A) asking the assessee for passing ex parte order in case of non-compliance. We found that since the assessee was collecting details and preparing the submissions, adjournment were sought by him. It is also not a case of complete noncompliance. We also found that even the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. As per provisions of Section 250(6) - CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order in writing giving reasons for reaching to the conclusion - order passed by the ld. CIT(A) are not in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Issues involved: Appeal against the order of ld.CIT(A)-IV, Jaipur dated 04/12/2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. Adjournment Requests by Assessee:The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) completing the assessment at a different total income than declared. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee had asked for adjournment on three occasions. The ld AR of the assessee argued that the adjournment requests were reasonable and valid, and the matter should be restored for deciding on merit. The Tribunal noted that the reasons for adjournment were justified, and the ld. CIT(A) did not provide a final opportunity before dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits and did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.2. Decision and Directions of the Tribunal:After considering the rival contentions and the orders of the authorities below, the Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The ld. CIT(A) was given the liberty to pass an order after considering the material placed on record in case of any failure on the part of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes only.3. Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice in the appeal process. By setting aside the ex parte order and directing a fresh consideration on merits, the Tribunal ensured that the assessee would have a proper opportunity to present their case before the ld. CIT(A). The judgment underscored the importance of providing a fair hearing and following due process in tax assessment matters.