What did the Tribunal hold?

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

The assessee filed an appeal belatedly, citing reasons such as non-service of notices and advocate's mistake. The assessee also contended that the impugned order was ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice as they could not represent their case before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice.

Shri Prabhas Patan Jain Swetamber… vs ITO | s.250, 143(1) | ITAT Rajkot 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghavi, 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. 351/RJT/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2023-24) Shri Prabhas Patan Jain Swetamber ITO Exemption Wd - 2, Rajkot Murti Pujak Sangh, It-Office, New Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Derasar Sheri, Prabhas Patan, Vatiaka, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat Veraval 362268, Gujarat India 360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABTS0095C (अपीलाथ�/Assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.R. Sanghavi, 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 2023- 24, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), dated 17.03.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 02.12.2024. 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

ITA No. 351/Rjt/2026 Shri Prabhas Patan Jain learned Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices for hearing were not served on the assessee during the appellate proceedings and due to mistake of the advocate of assessee, such delay was resulted which may be condoned in the interest of justice, on the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause for delay, hence, assessee’s appeal may be dismissed on account 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.

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. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.

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).

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 143(1) the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-prate order and non-speaking order,

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 351/Rjt/2026 Shri Prabhas Patan Jain 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 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.

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

SHRI PRABHAS PATAN JAIN SWETAMBER MURTI PUJAK SANGH,VERAVAL vs. ITO EXEMPTION WD 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments