M/S. TYRE TECHNOCRATS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay, and the CIT(A) affirmed the assessment order. The ITAT noted that it was unclear if proper notices were served on the assessee for the CIT(A) proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the principles of natural justice were complied with by the CIT(A) by providing proper notice and opportunity of hearing 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 20.09.2018 impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur, whereby the assessment order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 06.06.2017 by the DCIT, Circle-TDS, Udaipur has been affirmed.
At the outset, it appears from the impugned order that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Though, it appears from para No.4 of the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued three notices in the appellant proceedings, however, as per comments of the Ld CIT(A), neither anybody attended the hearing nor filed any application for adjournment. From the order, it does not reflects that
2 ITA No.558/Jodh/2018 Tyre Technocrats (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
the said notices 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 the assessee did not attend the proceedings nor file any application for adjournment, 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
3 ITA No.558/Jodh/2018 Tyre Technocrats (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
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.
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 appeal 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 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026