DAXA DEVABHAI KESHVALA,GOKULDARSHAN vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER 2(10), OPP RAJPARK

ITA 1047/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 September 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on account of a 60-day delay, but the Tribunal condoned this delay, finding sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sought an adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A) to file details and documents, which was not allowed. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also permitted to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Daxa Devabhai Keshvala, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)] dated 17.06.2026. This order arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 14.09.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee's primary contention was that the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) order was ex-parte and vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to represent their case and submit additional documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) is vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby requiring a fresh adjudication? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they could not effectively represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the impugned order was ex-parte, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee sought another opportunity to contest the appeal before the AO and submit additional documents and evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the ld. DR, did not raise any objection to the matter being restored back to the file of the assessing officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Padia, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 30/09/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2013-14, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 17.06.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 14.09.2021. Daxa Devabh

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →