M/S. PRABHAT AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,BHILWARA vs. ITO,WARD-5, BHILWARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice (Audi Alteram Partem) were not followed as it was unclear if proper notices were served and the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an assessment order affirmed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not attend hearings or file submissions on three dates, 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 lack of proper notice and opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the appellate proceedings.
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 07.09.2017 impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-Ajmenr, whereby the assesemnt order dated 24.02.2016 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') by the ITO, Ward No.5, Bhilwara has been affirmed.
At the outset, it appears from the impugned order that Ld. CIT(A) had fixed the appellant proceedings on 03 dates , however, as per comments of the Ld CIT(A), no one has attended on any of the date of hearing and no written submission has been filed . 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 not been specified, therefore it cannot be presumed that proper notices have been served upon the assessee and in spite of receiving notices
2 ITA No.481/Jodh/2018 M/s. Prabhat Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
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 person affected by it adversely will be invalid and shall be liable to be set aside.
3 ITA No.481/Jodh/2018 M/s. Prabhat Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
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 01.05.2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:01/05/2019 PK/PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026