SANJAYBHAI VALLABHBHAI FALDU,GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAJKOT
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 restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo 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).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order violated the principles of natural justice by being ex-parte and non-speaking. Whether the assessee was denied a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini
आदेश/ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, 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 01.10.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) on 06/03/2014.
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)
ITA No. 180/Rjt/2026 Sanjaybhai Vallabhbhai Faldu and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. 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.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the finding of the assessing officer.
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 143(3) 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 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
Page 2 of 3
ITA No. 180/Rjt/2026 Sanjaybhai Vallabhbhai Faldu
adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 08/05/2026.
Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member
राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 08/05/2026 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026