Order passed before the date assessee was allowed to furnish written submissions set aside

Passing order without waiting assessee’s compliances till the date it was allowed, goes against the principle of natural justice – ITAT

In a recent judgment, ITAT Raipur has held that passing of an order without waiting for the assessee’s compliances till the date up to which it was allowed, goes against the principle of natural justice.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4354 (2024) (12) abcaus.in ITAT Raipur

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC in passing the appeal order before the due date of compliance given in notice u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

It was the case of the assessee that the CIT(A) himself after considering the adjournment request of the assessee, had permitted the assessee by issuance of a notice u/s 250 of the Act to furnish the written submission / response fixing the date for compliance on or before 30^th September. However, the appeal order was passed on 20^th September i.e. before the expiry of the due date of compliance as permitted.

It was contended that passing of an order before the date of limitation up to which the assessee was supposed to furnish his response was clearly a violation of principle of natural justice, under such circumstances, the order of CIT(A) was erroneous and liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the appellate order came to be passed on a date prior to the date which was informed to the assessee up to which he was allowed to furnished necessary compliances.

The Tribunal opined that Passing of an order without waiting for the assessee’s compliances till the date up to which it was allowed, goes against the principle of natural justice and also does not indicate that fair opportunity of being heard was allowed to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that where the appellate order was passed before the due date up to which the assessee was having a lawful right to represent himself. Such action of the CIT(A) had divested the assessee from exercising his legitimate and bonafide rights for which he was entitled to.

As a result, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal restored the matters to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Demand set aside as assessee for period covered had discharged tax liability under SVLDRS
• No addition u/s 68 when there is no fresh receipt of unsecured loans during the year
• Taxes on sales comprising in turnover to be excluded for estimating net profit
• Capital contribution deposited in assessee’s bank not partnership firm – Addition 69A upheld
• Bail granted to a CA accused in a GST evasion of more than 40 crores