NURMAMADBHAI AMIBHAI BADI,WANKANER vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, MORBI, MORBI

ITA 541/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the lower authorities' order was non-speaking. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT belatedly by 14 days. The assessee contended that they could not properly represent their case before the lower authorities and sought an opportunity to present additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a sufficient opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities, and if the lower authorities' order was non-speaking.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. AR

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Hearing: 14/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 541/Rjt/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Nurmamadbhai Amibhai Badi The Income-tax Officer, RDC Bank APMC Marketing Yard Vs. Income tax office, Aayakar Branch, Chandrapur Ta: Wakaner Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National Dist: Morbi Wakaner Gujrat - Highway-8-A, At-Lalpur- 363621 Morbi Gujrat - 363621 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AJJPB4694B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14/05/2026 03/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017- 18, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 21.01.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2019. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly by 14 days before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay or urged for a benign view and

ITA No.541/Rjt/2026 Nurmamadbhai Amibhai Badi sought condonation of delay of 14 days in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

On merit, ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and before assessing officer, properly. The additional evidences are yet to be submitted before the lower authorities to prove the claim of the assessee. Therefore, an opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee.

The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

I 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. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is non-speaking order, as the assessee needs to submit additional documents to prove his claim, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I 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. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient Page 2 of 3

ITA No.541/Rjt/2026 Nurmamadbhai Amibhai Badi opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. I accept the prayer of the assessee and set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) for fresh consideration by the assessing officer with a liberty to the assessee to prove his case by producing sufficient evidence/material to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. For statistical purposes the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 03/07/2026.

SSSd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 03/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →