Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel contended that proper representation was not possible due to lack of notices and opportunity, leading to a violation of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, indicating a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to lack of sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present their case.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
�नधा�रतीक�ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. AR राज�वक�ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. DR सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER 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 26.08.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-20.
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) properly 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 appellate proceeding however, assessee sought adjournments only and could not file the required documents and details before ld. CIT(A). 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 Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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.
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.
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. 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. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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. CIT(A) 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 Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. I also direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the assessee’s appeal within six months from the date of receipt of this order. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Sunny Mehta, undertook responsibility to appear before CIT(A) to submit the necessary documents and evidences as and when called by the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms.