What did the Tribunal hold?

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

The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2017-18, arising from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that notices were not delivered, preventing representation and submission of documents, thus violating natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee.

Nileshkumar Mohanbhai Patel… vs ITO | s.144, 250 | ITAT Surat 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagsheth, CA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR

Hearing: 11/05/2026

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Surat Bench, Surat

Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 746/SRT/2025 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Nileshkumar Mohanbhai Patel ITO, wd – 4, Bhustad, Aat, Taluka Jalalpore, Dist. Aayakar Bhavan, Charpool, Vs. Navsari – 396403, Gujarat Navsari – 396445, Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BCDPP3633G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri P M Jagsheth, CA Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/05/2026 : 01/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC”), dated 18.06.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act, on 22.10.2019.

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)

ITA No.746/SRT/2025 Nileshkumar M. Patel 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, the notice from the Ld.CIT(A) were not delivered on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) and could not file the documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A) and as a result the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order, therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee wants, to submit documents and details before the Ld.CIT(A), hence, in the interest of justice, matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 144 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 Page 2 of 3

ITA No.746/SRT/2025 Nileshkumar M. Patel case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer 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. 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 01/06/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member Surat Date: 01/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, Surat  By order Guard File //True Copy// Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/P.S. ITAT, Surat

Page 3 of 3

NILESHKUMAR MOHANBHAI PATEL,BHUTSAD vs. ITO WARD-4, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

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