RANCHHOD BHAI PATEL ,MORBI, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD - 1 , MORVI

ITA 145/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 October 20263 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the material available, which constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had participated in the appellate proceedings and sought adjournment, but this was not allowed. Citing the settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require sufficient opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal, without delving into the merits, restored 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 directed to contest their stand forthwith and was at liberty to let in further evidence. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the AO for adjudication afresh on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ranchhod Bhai Patel, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal challenged an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)] dated 24.11.2025. This order arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 and 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 17.03.2025. The assessee's primary contention was that the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to represent their case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) dated 24.11.2025, arising from an assessment order under sections 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting a fresh adjudication. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they could not represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the order being ex-parte stood vitiated on account of the violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee requested another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer in the interest of justice. The assessee also stated that they sought adjournment to file details and documents, but the Ld. CIT(A) did not grant further time. 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 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: Ms. Apurva Hire, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 15/10/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2020-21, 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 24.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 17.03.2025. 2. At the outset its

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 →