SMT.SEJAL ASHISH KUMAR PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(3)(4), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to ensure a speaking order is passed.
What were the facts?
The assessee could not represent their case before the CIT(A) due to a change of address, resulting in an ex parte and non-speaking order. The Revenue did not object to remitting the matter back.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee violates principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM
O R D E R
PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat, in Appeal No. CIT(A), Surat-1/11286/2016-17 dated 04.06.2018, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 30.11.2016.
At the outset itself, Learned Counsel submits that impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A) is an ex parte order and assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A), therefore, an another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. Learned Counsel submits before us that due to change of address, the assessee could not receive notices from the ld. CIT(A), that is notice during the appellate proceedings could not be served on the assessee because of change of address and as a result the assessee could not plead his case before the ld. CIT(A).
Assessment Year. 2014-15 Sejal Ashishkumar Patel 3. Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced at the time of hearing of appeal on 15/09/2021 in the Virtual Court of hearing.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026