2018 (10) TMI 1101 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard not provided by the CIT(A) - notice issued on wrong address - Held that - In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) at the address D-60, Noida Authority, Sector-108, Noida. However, the assessment was framed by mentioning the address of the assessee as P-3, Shop No. LGF 20, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector-18, Noida, therefore, there is force in the submission of the assessee that the notices u/s 148 and 142(1) were issued at a wrong address i.e. the plot which was claimed to be not constructed at that time and the CIT(A) has also passed the impugned order without bringing any material on record that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim audi alteram partem . Therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida for want of prosecution; Validity of assessment u/s 147/144; Adequate opportunity provided to assessee; Address discrepancy in notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised in the appeal pertains to the dismissal of the appeal by ld. CIT(A) for want of prosecution. The assessee contended that no notice of hearing fixing the date was received, essential under section 250, and argued that reasonable and sufficient opportunity was not provided. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, emphasizing the necessity of providing a fair hearing. The principle of natural justice, "audi alteram partem," was invoked, leading to the remand of the case to the AO for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

2. The second issue concerns the validity of the assessment made under sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act. The AO initiated proceedings based on AIR information, issued notices u/s 148, and framed the assessment in absence of compliance. The assessee challenged the assessment on various grounds, including lack of notice for reopening, absence of necessary inquiries, and failure to serve mandatory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1). The Tribunal noted the discrepancies in the addresses on the notices, supporting the assessee's argument that notices were issued incorrectly. The Tribunal held that proper opportunity for hearing must be provided before passing an ex-parte order, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions.

3. The third issue revolves around whether adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee during the proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not respond to hearing dates, leading to the dismissal. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that notices were sent to the wrong address, highlighting the importance of serving notices correctly to ensure a fair hearing. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the significance of providing reasonable opportunities for the assessee to present their case effectively.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical issues raised in the appeal and the Tribunal's comprehensive assessment of each issue, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles throughout the proceedings.