MAHARASI MAHADEVAN PILLAI,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 901/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 July 2026AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, deeming it an ex-parte and non-speaking order violating natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee could not represent their case before the CIT(A) due to a family marriage function, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee claimed to have relevant documents now and sought an opportunity to present them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to violation of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

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 Yogesh, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 20/07/2026

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. 901/RJT/2025 [ �नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2010-11 ] Maharasi Mahadevan Pillai, ITO, Ward-1, Gandhidham, House No. 14, Vagheshree Income-tax Office, Plot No. 32, Vs. Township-3, Varshamedi Sector No. 3, Near IFFCO Colony, Village, Gandhidham, Gandhidham-370201, Gujarat Gujarat-370201 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ΑΕΚΡΡ5282R (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Yogesh, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20/07/2026 : 31/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement :: ORDER :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2010-11, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 06.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 22.12.2017. 2. At the outset itself, ld. Counsel for the assessee, assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and

ITA No. 901/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2010-11 ] Maharasi Mahadevan Pillai v. ITO

the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to marriage function in the assessee’s family, the assessee could not file the relevant documents and evidences before the learned CIT(A). Besides, when the proceedings were going on before the assessing officer, the relevant documents and evidences were not available and now the assessee is ready with relevant documents and evidences to be submitted before the assessing officer. Therefore, ld.Counsel stated that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee has wasted the time and resources of the lower authorities. Therefore, cost should be imposed on the assessee, if the Bench wants to restore the matter back to the file of the assessing officer.

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. 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.

5.

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. CIT(A) and assessing officer. The assessee wants to submit before the assessing officer, the additional documents and evidences to prove his claim, therefore, we

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 901/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2010-11 ] Maharasi Mahadevan Pillai v. ITO

are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee, to plead his case before the assessing officer. We also note that ld. CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee, 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. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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 assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

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 //True Copy// राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 31/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT By order 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →