2018 (5) TMI 1765 - AT - Income Tax

Not provided the opportunity as requested by the appellant - non speaking order - Held that - It is seen that the assessee s returned income of 13, 74, 000/- odd was selected for scrutiny wherein the assessment was concluded at an income of 29, 43, 820/-. The additions made by the AO were challenged in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) where initially time was sought subsequently on 25.11.2014 neither anyone appeared nor any request for time was made. The assessee remained unrepresented for the reasons beyond the control of the counsel. Accordingly accepting the submissions to be correct and true and also accepting the oral undertaking giving by the Ld. AR the impugned order is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A)-Faridabad for 2010-11 AY - Lack of opportunity before CIT(A) - Remand to CIT(A) for affording opportunity.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order of CIT(A)-Faridabad for the assessment year 2010-11. The main issue raised was the lack of opportunity provided to the assessee before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that despite seeking time on previous occasions, due to unforeseen circumstances such as theft at the residence of the counsel's office employee, the counsel could not appear for the hearing. The counsel requested the issue to be remanded to the CIT(A) for affording a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Authorized Representative (AR) highlighted that the assessee had appeared before the CIT(A) on specific dates but could not present the case due to genuine reasons. The Senior Departmental Representative (DR) argued that despite sufficient time given earlier, the assessee did not support its claim. The AR clarified that the issue was solely related to the lack of opportunity before the CIT(A) and not challenging the assessment order itself. The DR did not oppose the prayer for remand considering the circumstances.

After hearing the submissions and examining the records, it was noted that the assessee's returned income was scrutinized, resulting in certain additions to the income by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) proceedings were hindered due to the absence of the counsel, attributed to uncontrollable events. The ITAT accepted the submissions, set aside the impugned order, and remanded it back to the CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The ITAT emphasized that the opportunity provided should not be misused, and the assessee must actively participate in the proceedings. The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced in open court.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment primarily addressed the issue of lack of opportunity before the CIT(A) for the assessee, leading to the decision to remand the case back for a fair hearing. The ITAT emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard and directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law.