KAMLESH BHARATKUMAR RANPARA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Learned CIT(A). It was observed that the Learned CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice. Citing settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require granting sufficient opportunity to the affected party, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Learned CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest his stand forthwith. The assessee was granted liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Learned CIT(A) was directed to allow adequate opportunity for submissions before passing a fair and judicious order. No comments were made on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri Kamlesh Bharatkumar Ranpara, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, against an order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)). The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed belatedly by 507 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing mitigating circumstances. The Revenue opposed the condonation. The ITAT condoned the delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is vitiated on account of violation of the principle of natural justice, and if so, whether the matter should be remitted back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that he could not represent his case before the Learned CIT(A) and that the order passed was ex-parte, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The assessee claimed that notices were not served on him, although there was compliance before the Assessing Officer. He expressed a desire to submit all required details and documents before the lower authorities and requested that the matter be remitted back to the Learned CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The Learned DR for the Revenue relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
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), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 27.02.2024 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
Kamlesh Bharatkumar Ranpara 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly. The Ld. Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay, and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 507 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue, opposed the prayer of assessee to condone the delay. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favorer of assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
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 assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and the notices were not served on the assessee, however, there was compliance before the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee wants to submit all required details and documents before the Lower Authorities, therefore matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the finding of the assessing officer.
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/s143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act and the Kamlesh Bharatkumar Ranpara 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. 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. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of proceedings before him, in consequence to this order and the Ld. CIT(A) shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order is pronounced in the open court on 24/10/2025
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 Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Smt. Amna Baghel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Harshita Seeds vs. Idbi BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Rajdeep vs. Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026