KASHAMBHAI NURMAHAMADBHAI KHALIFA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 23/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 May 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex-parte order as notices were not served, preventing the assessee from presenting their case. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 20/02/2026Pronounced: 04/05/2026

आदेश / ORDER

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2020- 21, 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 27.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 of the Act on 17.03.2025.

ITA No. 23/Rjt/2026 – A.Y. 2020-21 Kashambhai Nurmahamadbhai Khalifa vs. ITO

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 the 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 submitted that during the appellate proceedings, notices of hearings were not served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and as a result, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. 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.

3.

The Ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the Ld. Counsel.

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 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 Ld. CIT(A)for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 23/Rjt/2026 – A.Y. 2020-21 Kashambhai Nurmahamadbhai Khalifa vs. ITO

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.

5.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 04/05/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 04/05/2026 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

Strengthened preparation & delivery of orders in the ITAT 1) Date of dictation 20/02/2026 As per format 2) Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating 20/02/2026 Member & Other Member 3) Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 4) Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 5) Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 6) Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7) Date on which the file goes the Head Clerk 8) Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9) Date of Dispatch of the order

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 →