HARSHADBHAI KHIMJIBHAI SHINGALA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1)(3), RAJKOT

None appeared on the date of hearing before the Bench, despite of issued notice of hearing to the assessee.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the finding of the Assessing Officer.

I have heard the Ld. DR and 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 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 opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. 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. 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 assessing officer 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 05/05/2026.