DIPENBHAI VAGHELA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 1102/RJT/2026Status: HeardITAT Rajkot01 October 2026AY 2024-253 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the 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 his case successfully. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on account of a 60-day delay, but the assessee had explained a sufficient cause for this delay, which the Tribunal condoned. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had sought adjournments to file details and documents, but these were 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 assessing officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest his stand forthwith and was at liberty to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Dipenbhai Vaghela, proprietor of Manpasand Dresses, 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 made by the Assessing Officer under sections 144 read with 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 23.03.2026. The assessment year under consideration is 2013-14. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed on 01.10.2026.

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 the impugned order was ex-parte as he could not represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the order was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice and sought another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer, intending to file additional documents and evidence. The assessee also claimed to have explained sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow further time for filing details and documents. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter was restored back to the file of the assessing officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 01/10/2026

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 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 23.03.2026. 2. At the outs

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →