SATYEN MAYURBHAI DESAI,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, VALSAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 420/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 June 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2011-12, arising from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/05/2026

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

Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 420/SRT/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Satyen Mayurbhai Desai The Income Tax Officer Ward-4, 105 Shivaalee Residency, Halar Near Valsad. Vs. Shree Nagar Society Valsad 396001, New Income tax Office, Palak Gujarat Arcade, Pali Hill, Shanti Nagar, Tithal, Valsad-396001, Gujarat. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGRPD9976H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13/05/2026 : 01/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011- 12, 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 (NFAC) Delhi, dated 30.01.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, on 25.10.2018.

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 Ld. CIT(A)

ITA No.420/Srt/2026 Satyen Mayurbhai Desai and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel submitted that assessee wants to file additional evidences before assessing officer. Therefore, 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.

3.

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 assessing officer.

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 144 r.w.s. 147 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 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. Page 2 of 3

ITA No.420/Srt/2026 Satyen Mayurbhai Desai CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, 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 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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →