JIGNESH KIRTIBHAI SONCHHATRA,RAJKOT vs. AO NUMBER 96, JURISDICTION ITO WD 2(2)(1), RKT/, RAJKOT

ITA 856/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) himself admitted that the assessee could not file the details and documents on merit. Citing the settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest their case, the Tribunal decided not to delve into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to contest his stand forthwith. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jignesh Kirtibhai Sonchhatra, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 04.09.2025. This order arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 06.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and vitiated due to a violation of natural justice, as he could not present his case or submit necessary documents and evidence before the CIT(A) due to their unavailability at that time. The assessee sought another opportunity to contest the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to represent his case and submit evidence, thereby contravening the principles of natural justice and fair play under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice because he could not present his case or submit documents and evidence on merit before the CIT(A) when the proceedings were ongoing. He requested another opportunity to contest the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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 Deep Vipul Doshi, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 27/07/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020- 21, 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 04.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/144B of the Act, on 06.03.2025. 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Coun

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 →