SHRI PATEL SEVA SAMAJ,MORBI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC), RAJKOT Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Account Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 203/RJT/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Shri Patel Seva Samaj, IT Office, Village at Harbatiyali, Post Officer New Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka, Vs. Harbatiyali, Taluka Tankara, Rajkot - 360001 Morbi - 363650, Gujrat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAXTS4909F (अपीलाथ�/Assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2026

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020- 21, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 27.01.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, on 13.09.2022. 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 before Ld. CIT(A). The learned counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and

ITA No.203/Rjt/2026 Shri Patel Seva Samaj, sought condonation of delay of 183 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). on the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the 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 in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 3. On merit 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 violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment proceedings therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 5,000/- may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower authorities. 5. 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) r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

ITA No.203/Rjt/2026 Shri Patel Seva Samaj, 6. 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 Id. CIT(A). I note that the Id. 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. 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. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- 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, I 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. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Id. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the assessing officer in the light of the observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. 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. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order is pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2026. Sd/- Dr. Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant Member)

ITA No.203/Rjt/2026 Shri Patel Seva Samaj, राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 07/05/2026

Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  Guard File /True copy/ By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot