NILESH PRANJIVAN BHATIYA,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MORBI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 261/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 May 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to plead their case and failed to consider the submitted documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2019-20, arising from an order passed under section 147 read with 144B. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider their written submissions and comparable cases, thus violating natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, and whether principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Hearing: 06/04/2026Pronounced: 06/05/2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट�ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No. 261/RJT/2026 �नधा�रणवष�/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Nilesh Pranjivam Bhatiya ITO, Wd – 1, At-Jikiyari, TA- Morbi, Vs. Shakti Chambers, NH-27, Anand DIST.- Morbi- 363641 - Gujrat Nagar, Morbi – Morvi – Gujrat - 363641 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AUBPB2475K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

�नधा�रतीक�ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.AR राज�वक�ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 06/04/2026 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 06/05/2026

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20, 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 17.12.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, on 26.03.2024.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has submitted detailed written

ITA No. 261/RJT/2026 Nilesh Pranjivam Bhatiya submission, but the same was not considered by Ld. CIT(A) at all. The assessee also submitted the comparable cases; however, Ld. CIT(A) ignored them. Besides, the assessee wants to submit additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the First Appellate Authority.

3.

The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have 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 assessment was carried out u/s 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is without considering the written submission of assessee, 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 written submissions, and other comparable cases filed 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

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 261/RJT/2026 Nilesh Pranjivam Bhatiya

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 06/05/2026. Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot (True Copy) िदनांक/ Date : 06/05/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  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 →