LALITKUMAR RAGHUVIR DHOLARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAJKOT(1), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 566/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 July 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that they could not properly represent their case before the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The assessee sought to submit all documents and evidence before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present all evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 09/07/2026Pronounced: 31/07/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 566/RJT/2025 [ �नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] Lalitkumar Raghuvir Dholariya, Income Tax Officer, Gadhaka, Via Kasturbhadham, Vs. Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot. Tramba, Tal. Rajkot, Dist. Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot Gujarat-360020 Gujarat-360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADMPD6977G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31/07/2026 :: ORDER :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] 05.09.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of

ITA No. 566/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2018-19 ] Lalitkumar Raghuvir Dholariya v. ITO

violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not submit the entire documents and evidences before the assessing officer. Before the Ld.CIT(A), there is part of compliance by the assessee, therefore, now assessee wants to submit entire documents and evidences before the Lower Authorities. Therefore, the assessee’s appeals may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

3.

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee did not submit the entire documents and evidences before the Lower Authorities. The assessee was negligent, therefore the cost should be imposed on the assessee if the Bench wants to remit this issue back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

4.

We have heard, both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B 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.

5.

Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity of being heard and 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. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural

ITA No. 566/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2018-19 ] Lalitkumar Raghuvir Dholariya v. ITO

justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non- compliance attitude of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.1,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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 assessing officer 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. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment, proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 31/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 31/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : The assessee The Respondent CIT By order The CIT(A) DR, ITAT, RAJKOT Guard File Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →