DILIPBHAI KARASHNBHAI ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PORBANDAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 528/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 May 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating natural justice principles. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal belatedly before the ITAT. The assessee contended that the impugned order from the CIT(A) was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice as they could not represent their case properly.

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 another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,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 Kaushik B. Delvadiya, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 12/05/2026

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. 528/Rjt/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2019-20) Dilipbhai Karshanbhai Odedara Income-tax Officer Padarad, Ranavav, Vs. Porbandar Gujrat - 360575 Porbandar Gujrat - 360575 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABLPO9652J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kaushik B. Delvadiya, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/05/2026 : 12/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, 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 13.02.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 27.02.2024. 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. The learned counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard sitting reason for condonation of delay or urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of

ITA No.528/Rjt/2026 Dilipbhai Karshanbhai Odedara

347 days in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. On the other hand, Ld AR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of 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 is condoned.

3.

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 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.

4.

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.

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 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B 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

Page 2 of 3

ITA No.528/Rjt/2026 Dilipbhai Karshanbhai Odedara

violation of principle of natural justice. However, I impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee which is to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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. 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.

6.

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

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

SSd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member 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 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 →