M/S. GOLD STAR MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard ('Audi Alteram Partem'), were not followed as it was unclear if proper notices were served. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the CIT(A) which affirmed an order passed by the DCIT under Section 154. The CIT(A) noted non-compliance by the assessee despite several opportunities, but the order did not specify the mode of service of notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to non-compliance with proper notice and opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI N.K.SAINI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
PER N.K.CHOUDHRY
The instant appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the order dated 12-01-2019 impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-Ajmenr, whereby the order dated 16-02-2018 passed u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') by the DCIT, Cental Circle-1, Udaipur, has been affirmed.
At the outset, it appears from the impugned order that Ld. CIT(A) had fixed the appellant proceedings on various dates , however, as per comments of the Ld CIT(A), the assessee was allowed several opportunities of being heard, there was no compliance . From the order, it does not reflects that the notices of the hearing have ever been served upon the assessee or not and even mode of service has
2 ITA No.97/Jodh/2019 M/S Gold Stat Marbles Pvt. Vs. DCIT
not been specified, therefore it cannot be presumed that proper notices have been served upon the assessee and in spite of receiving notices the assessee did not attend the proceedings nor filed any written submission, hence we have to consider as to whether the principles of natural justice have complied with in the instant case by giving proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee/Appellant.
It is trite to say that every person has the right to speak and be heard when allegations are being put towards him or her. If no opportunity has been given to the party effected, then it shall amount to violations of the principles of natural justice, which embedded in latin words “Audi Alteram Partem” which means ‘hear the other side’, or ‘no man should be condemned un-heard’ or ‘both the sides must be heard before passing any order’. The principle of Audi Alteram Partem is the basic concept of the principle of natural justice and has not evolved from the constitution but evolved through civilization and mankind and is the concept of common law, which implies fairness, reasonableness, equality and equity. In India, the principles of natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 enshrines that every person should be treated equally. In the landmark case of ‘Maneka Gandhi vs. The Union of India’ (1978 AIR 597), it has been held by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that the law and procedure must be of a fair, just and reasonable kind. The doctrine ensures a fair hearing and fair justice to both the parties. Under this doctrine, both the parties have the right to speak. The aim of this principle is to give an opportunity to the parties to defend themselves. Before the court, both the parties are equal and are entitlement of equal opportunity to represent them. If the order is passed by the authority without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
3 ITA No.97/Jodh/2019 M/S Gold Stat Marbles Pvt. Vs. DCIT
person affected by it adversely will be invalid and shall be liable to be set aside.
Coming to the instant case, the principles of natural justice have not been followed, as it is fundamental principle of law that no one can be remain un-heard, therefore in the peculiar facts of circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say while affording proper opportunities of being heard to the assessee.
We also direct the Assessee/Appellant to extend its full co- operation and participation in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when required and in case of further default, the assessee shall not be subjected to any leniency.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee/Appellant stands
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03 .05.2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03/05/2019 PK/PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026