2016 (12) TMI 1765 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal of appeal by not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee - denial of principle of natural justice - non speaking order - Held that - CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking and exparte order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issues in dispute afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties and pass a speaking order. However, the Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the CIT(A) and produce all the documents before him to substantiate his claim and not to take any unnecessary adjournment. -Assessee appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A) relating to assessment year 2009-10. Grounds raised by the assessee: 1) Non-representation due to counsel's unavailability, 2) Illegal additions without proper adjudication, 3) Restoration of appeal for adjudication, 4) Permission for additional ground. Contention of assessee's counsel regarding principles of natural justice. Ex parte order by Ld. CIT(A). Sufficient opportunities for hearing. Justification of AO's additions. Setting aside issues for fresh adjudication by Ld. CIT(A). Cooperation and document production by Assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds raised by the assessee included issues related to non-representation due to the unavailability of the counsel, illegal additions without proper adjudication, restoration of appeal for adjudication, and permission for an additional ground. The contention was that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order against the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee.

Both parties did not dispute the facts narrated by the revenue authorities. The assessee's counsel argued that the Ld. CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunities for the assessee. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed multiple dates for hearing, and it was observed that the appellant either filed adjournment applications or did not attend the hearings. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that sufficient opportunities had been given to the appellant, and no further adjournment could be granted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the material evidence on record.

Upon perusing the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings, it was determined that the order was non-speaking and ex parte, which was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law. In the interest of justice, the issues were set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide adequate opportunity for both parties to be heard and pass a speaking order. The Assessee was instructed to cooperate fully and produce all necessary documents without unnecessary adjournments.

As a result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice, adequate opportunities for hearing, and the necessity for reasoned orders in legal proceedings.