What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard and violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee requested a video conference hearing and more time to submit documents before the CIT(A), but these were denied. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with adequate opportunity for hearing and submission of documents, violating principles of natural justice.

Mohsin Mehmudbhai Akbani, Rajkot vs ITO | s.250, 143(3) | ITAT Rajkot 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Hearing: 08/04/2026Pronounced: 07/05/2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट�ायपीठ,राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No. 417/RJT/2026 �नधा�रणवष�/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mohsin Mehmudbhai Akbani ITO, wd – 2(1)(1), Street No. 3, Lakhaji Raj, Rajkot-360001 Vs. Shramjivi Society, Dudh Sagar Road, Rajkot - 360003 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BXSPA9192B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

�नधा�रतीक�ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vipul Dattani, Ld.AR राज�वक�ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2026 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2026

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 30.01.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 22.03.2024.

ITA No. 417/RJT/2026 Mohsin Mehmudbhai Akbani

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the proceedings going on before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee demanded an opportunity to Video Conference hearing, however, the Ld.CIT(A) did not granted an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee wanted to submit some more documents and evidences before the Ld.CIT(A), however, the Ld.CIT(A) did not give time to the assessee to file further documents and evidences, therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse requested that the matter should be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to the Ld.CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish documents and evidences before him. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld.CIT(A).

The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

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) the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. 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. 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 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. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 417/RJT/2026 Mohsin Mehmudbhai Akbani

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 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, I 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 in the open court on 07/05/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 07/05/2026 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 //True Copy// Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

MOHSIN MEHMUDBHAI AKBANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments