JAGDISH MAKANJI THACKER,BHUJ vs. THE ITO, ITO WARD-3, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 611/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh 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 were not given a proper opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) and wished to file additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case and file 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 (SMC

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 07/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench (SMC), Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 611/Rjt/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Jagdish Makanji Thacker The ITO, ITO Ward -3 Ganesh Telecome Madhapar Highway, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Bhuj (Gujrat) 670001 Gandhidham (Gujrat) - 370201 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGBPT5391E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/05/2026 : 07/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2020-21, 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 09.02.2026, 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 22.03.2025. 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 violation of

ITA No.611/Rjt/2026 Jagdish Makanji Thacker

principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel submitted that assessee wants to file additional evidences before assessing officer. Therefore, 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.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the assessing officer.

4.

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 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, 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 opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 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.

Page 2 of 3

ITA No.611/Rjt/2026 Jagdish Makanji Thacker

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. 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.

5.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2026.

SSSd/- [ 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

Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS 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 →