2021 (6) TMI 309 - AT - Income Tax

Deductions us 57(iii) - Assessee not being heard - HELD THAT - As in the facts of the present cases, the assessee apparently was not heard. No doubt the written submissions were available on record, however, they were not considered sufficient for warranting a relief on merits as prayed for. It is not evident from the body of the orders that the assessee was confronted with the fact that these written submissions were not sufficient for the relief prayed for and consequently admittedly no opportunity to support the claim was made available as held in SHRI AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR VERSUS THE ITO, WARD SANGRUR 2021 (5) TMI 411 - ITAT CHANDIGARH . Accordingly, it is seen that since in the facts, the written submissions were not sufficient to grant a relief, then notice to the said effect necessarily should have been given to the assessee. As evident that the opportunity of placing supporting facts or arguments admittedly has not been provided. In these circumstances, considering the prayer of the parties, the issue is remanded back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee in its own interests is advised to make full and proper compliances before the said authority as failing which it is made clear that the AO shall be at liberty to pass an order on the basis of the material available on record. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals challenging the correctness of a common order by CIT(A) pertaining to the 2014-15 assessment year; Seeking time to file necessary documents; Allegations of passing orders without basis and proper opportunity; Claiming deductions under section 57(iii) as allowable; Lack of fair hearing and consideration of supporting documents by CIT(A); Violation of principles of natural justice; Remanding the issue back to AO for a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Analysis:

1. Challenging the Common Order:
The appeals were filed by different assessees challenging the correctness of a common order dated 26.11.2018 of CIT(A), Shimla pertaining to the 2014-15 assessment year. A common order was passed due to identical grounds and circumstances in both appeals. The assessees sought time to file necessary documents, alleging that the order passed lacked basis and proper opportunity, thus requiring quashing.

2. Claiming Deductions under Section 57(iii):
The assessees argued for the allowability of deductions under section 57(iii) based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Modi. They contended that similar deductions had been allowed in earlier years, but supporting documents were questioned. The appellants emphasized that the CIT(A) did not provide a fair hearing and failed to consider further documentary evidence, necessitating a remand to the AO for proper verification.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal noted a lack of fair hearing in the present cases, emphasizing the importance of the right to be heard as a fundamental principle of natural justice. Citing previous orders, it highlighted that the assessee must be informed if written submissions are insufficient for the relief sought, providing an opportunity to rectify any shortcomings. The Tribunal stressed that fair play and transparency are essential in administrative decisions affecting the rights of parties.

4. Remand to AO for Speaking Order:
Considering the parties' prayers and the lack of sufficient written submissions, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO with directions to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to comply fully before the AO, as failure to do so might result in the AO passing an order based on available records. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, addressing the grounds of appeal, arguments presented, violations of natural justice, and the ultimate decision to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fair hearing and proper consideration of evidence.