LAKHABHAI BACHUBHAI TIMBADIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 685/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 December 2025AY 2019-203 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment was carried out under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, and the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest their case. Therefore, without delving into the merits, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. The order of the Learned CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lakhabhai Bachubhai Timbadia, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated August 22, 2025. This order arose from an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee contended that the impugned order was ex-parte and vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, as notices were not properly served, preventing representation before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The assessee sought to submit additional documents and evidence and requested the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present their case? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was ex-parte and therefore vitiated. This was because notices were not adequately served, preventing the assessee from presenting their case before the Assessing Officer and subsequently before the CIT(A). The assessee sought to submit additional documents and evidence and requested a remand for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee was negligent in their approach and failed to appear before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Revenue argued that a cost should be imposed on the assessee for their non-compliance attitude.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 22.08.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-20.

A.Y. 2019-20 Lakhabhai Bachubhai Timbadia 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices were not issued to the assessee during the assessment proceeding, therefore, the assessee has not submitted details before the assessing officer. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that now assessee wants to submit some additional documents and evidences, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, therefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non- compliance attitude.

4.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex- parte order and non- speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

5.

Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. A.Y. 2019-20 Lakhabhai Bachubhai Timbadia CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. Assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 05/12/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →