HITESHBHAI RATANBHAI PATEL,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 54/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 May 2026AY 2022-233 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee contended that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice as notices of hearings were not served. The assessee also sought to file additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, 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 2022- 23, 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 26.05.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2024.

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.

ITA No. 54/Rjt/2026 – A.Y. 2022-23 Hiteshbhai Ratanshibhai Patel vs. ITO

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 stated that assessee wants to file additional evidence, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 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

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 54/Rjt/2026 – A.Y. 2022-23 Hiteshbhai Ratanshibhai Patel vs. ITO

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 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 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

Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →