PEARL SALT WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KACHCHH vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS, GANDHIDHAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 345/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2026AY 2018-193 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 restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The assessee contended that this violated the principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 26/03/2026Pronounced: 08/05/2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 345/RJT/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Pearl Salt Works Private Limited, The Income-tax Officer, DBZ, S 23 Shree Ram House, TDS, Gandhidham Vs. Gandhidham 370201, Income-tax Office, Plot No. 32, Gujarat India Sector No. 3, Near IFFCO Colony, Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: RKTP03252E (अपीलाथ�/Assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2026

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2018- 19, 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 13.01.2026, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271C of the Act, on 27.08.2025.

ITA No. 345/Rjt/2026 Shri Pearl salt works pvt. Ltd. 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 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 Ld. CIT(A) 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 Ld.CIT(A).

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 penalty was carried out u/s 271C the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-prate 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 Ld. CIT(A) 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

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 345/Rjt/2026 Shri Pearl salt works pvt. Ltd. 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. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, 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 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

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →