MUKESH BABULA SAINI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

PDF

ITA 130/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 November 2025AY 2021-22Bench: the ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250 of the Act. We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted suffici1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal for AY 2021-22 was directed against an order by the CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and did not decide the issue on merit. The assessee also contended that the Assessing Officer had not examined basic facts.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead its case effectively before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) did not pass the order as per the mandate of Section 250 of the Act. It was also noted that the assessee did not submit all documents and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

Key Issues

Whether the appellate order was passed ex parte without deciding the issue on merit, and if the assessee was denied sufficient opportunity of being heard at the assessment and appellate stages.

Sections Cited

143(3), 144B, 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR

Hearing: 06/08/2025Pronounced: 03/11/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER, DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 04.12.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 23.12.2022.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Mukesh Babulal Saini vs. ITO Act. The AO noted that the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard through VC scheduled to meet natural justice on 21.12.2022 and after that the VC was concluded. On appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merit in accordance with provisions of Section 250 of the Act. Therefore ld. counsel contended that since the order passed by the Assessing Officer is also under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the Assessing Officer has not examined the basic facts of the assessee’s case, therefore the ld. counsel prays the Bench that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, Learned Sr. Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment stage as well as during the appellate proceedings; therefore, appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed.