Tribunal sets aside order, emphasizes right to be heard, remands case for reconsideration.

The tribunal set aside the order due to the violation of principles of natural justice, rejection of the rectification application without addressing key issues, and passing the rectification order beyond the statutory timeline. The tribunal emphasized the right to be heard and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, instructing to first determine the maintainability of the order and provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
2. Rejection of Rectification Application
3. Limitation for Passing Rectification Order
4. Jurisdictional Challenge
5. Maintainability of Rectification Application
6. Waiver of Right to be Heard

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. The tribunal noted that the written submissions of the assessee were considered, but it was not evident if the assessee was confronted with the fact that its submissions were insufficient. The tribunal emphasized that the right to be heard is fundamental and should not be presumed waived unless explicitly stated by the assessee. The tribunal concluded that the order could not be upheld due to the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

2. Rejection of Rectification Application:
The CIT(A) rejected the rectification application on the grounds that it was not a mistake apparent from the record. The tribunal observed that the rectification application was filed electronically by the assessee and later manually by the counsel. The tribunal highlighted that any deficiencies in the e-filing should have been notified to the assessee for correction. The tribunal found the rejection of the rectification application unjustified as the primary issue of whether the rectification order was passed within the statutory timeline remained unaddressed.

3. Limitation for Passing Rectification Order:
The assessee argued that the rectification order was barred by limitation as it was passed after the statutory period of six months. The tribunal noted that the rectification application was filed on 01.12.2017 and transferred to the concerned AO on 05.12.2017, but the order was passed on 09.11.2018, beyond the six-month period prescribed under Section 154(8) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal held that the rectification order was not passed within the statutory timeline, and the issue was remanded back for fresh consideration.

4. Jurisdictional Challenge:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the AO, arguing that the rectification application was not filed by the assessee but by the counsel. The tribunal referred to the case law of Smt. Jangir Kaur, Ambala City vs Assessee, which supported the view that the rectification application should be filed by the assessee. The tribunal found that the application filed by the counsel without the assessee's signature was non-est in the eyes of law. However, the tribunal noted that the primary issue of limitation remained unaddressed and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

5. Maintainability of Rectification Application:
The assessee contended that the rectification application was maintainable as it was filed electronically by the assessee. The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not address whether the manual application filed by the counsel was a reminder or a substitution for the e-filed application. The tribunal held that the rectification application was maintainable and the issue needed to be reconsidered by the CIT(A).

6. Waiver of Right to be Heard:
The tribunal emphasized that the right to be heard is a fundamental principle of natural justice. The tribunal found no evidence that the assessee consciously waived the right to be heard by submitting written submissions. The tribunal held that the order could not be upheld as the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard after the written submissions were found insufficient.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance with law, first on the maintainability of the order itself after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the assessee does not succeed, the other issues challenged shall become live, and the CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---