9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my between administrative and quasi-judicial function vis- -vis the doctrine of natural justice is presumably obsolescent after Kraipak (A.K. Kraipak vs UOI [ 1969 (4) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT] which makes the water-shed in the application of natural justice to administrative proceedings. The rules of natural justice are rooted in all legal systems and are not any new theology. They are manifested in the twin principles of nemo judex in parte sua (no person shall be a judge in his own case) and audi alterem partem (the right to be heard). It has been pointed out that the aim of natural justice is to secure justice. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. PCIT, hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Set aside the order of the ld. PCIT and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. PCIT to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits - Appeal of the assessee is allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act for the same year were framed, wherein due inquiry was made. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has grievously erred in setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act without pointing out as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above proposed proceedings may please be revoked as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves liberty to add, alter, or delete any of the ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a firm and had filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 27.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,32,06,770/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee firm was engaged in the business of builder, developers and construction activities. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 09.12.2016 accepting the returned income shown by the assessee firm. 4. Later on, Ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 6. Shri Rasesh Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the issue raised by the ld PCIT had been adequately enquired and dealt upon and then Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income, therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. The ld Counsel also stated that revision order u/s 263 of the Act was passed in haste and hurry therefore, assessee could not submit material evidences before ld PCIT. Therefore, ld Counsel states that another opportunity should be given to the assessee to submit material facts and evidences before ld PCIT. 8. On the other hand, Learned CIT-DR for the Revenue submitted that Assessing Officer has passed a cryptic order and there is no mention in the assessment order about the examination of the issue raised by Ld. PCIT. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT should be upheld. 9. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We note that para 3 of the revision order u/s 263 of the Act, of ld PCIT, states as follows: ..Accordingly, vide show cause notice dated 14.03.2019, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee firm after making necessary disallowances of wrong claims made by the assessee firm. Therefore, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 23.12.2016 for A.Y. 2014-15, in the instant case, is set-aside with the direction to frame the assessment De novo. The necessary order may be passed in time and as per the provisions of law. The Assessing Officer concerned is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before finalizing the assessment proceedings. 12. From the above findings of ld PCIT in his 263 order, it is vivid that ld PCIT has given a general direction to the Assessing Officer to frame entire assessment order again, whereas ld PCIT in his revision order raised the specific issue to examine the unsecured loan by the Assessing Officer. Hence the direction given to the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with the specific issue identified by ld PCIT. 13. Therefore, we note that ld PCIT has not provided adequate opportunity to the assessee to file relevant material evidences and documents before him during the revision proceedings and hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act was passed by ld PCIT in hurry. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
