SHRI YASH M. GUPTA,VERSAMEDI, KUTCH vs. ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 129/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 May 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-service of hearing notices. The assessee contended a violation of natural justice and sought to file additional evidence before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice due to non-service of notices. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present additional evidence before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 20/02/2026Pronounced: 12/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �ायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.129/Rjt/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Yash M Gupta, ITO, Ward 1, Plot No.-25 to 44, Survey No.-548, Income Tax Office, Plot Rivera Elegance, Near Air Port Road, Vs. No.32, Sector No.3, Near Varsamedi B.O. Varsamedi, Kachchh, IFFCO Colony, Gandhidham, Gujarat-370110 Gujarat-370201 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: DGIPG0085C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12/05/2026 आदेश / ORDER

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22, 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 20.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 15.12.2022.

2.

At the outset itself, 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

ITA No. 129/Rjt/2026 [ A.Y. 2021-22 ] Yash M. Gupta v. ITO

violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, notices of hearings were not served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and as a result, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee wants to file additional evidence before the Assessing Officer, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 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 did not raise 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 order was passed u/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. 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

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 129/Rjt/2026 [ A.Y. 2021-22 ] Yash M. Gupta v. ITO

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. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of proceedings in consequence to this order and the assessing officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.

5.

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

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 12/05/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// राजकोट/ Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 12/05/2026 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

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →