Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) dated 16.01.2025 and an assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), asserting that both the assessment and appellate orders were ex-parte and thus violated principles of natural justice, despite notices being issued.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A), leading to a violation of natural justice. However, considering the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the AO to provide sufficient opportunity and for the assessee to contest their stand forthwith.
Key Issues
Whether ex-parte orders by lower authorities, passed without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violate principles of natural justice, warranting restoration of the case despite the assessee's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
(िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Saraswatiben Jayantilal Somaiya, ITO Officer Ward – 4 Shop No. 1, Vs. Near Leva Patel Hospital, Classic Complex, Bhuj - 370001 Lal Tekri, Near Gurudwara, Bhuj - 370001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALCPS9691Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 : 22/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER 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 dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]16.01.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
At the outset itself, I note that 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 order passed by the assessing officer as well as order passed by
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, and matter may be restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.
I have heard Ld. DR for the Revenue, 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 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 impose a minimum cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. If the assessee did not deposit the cost in Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days of receipt of this order, then this order shall be deemed as vacation, and assessee’s appeal would be treated as Saraswatiben Jayntilal Somaiya dismissed. The Assessing Officer, while passing the appeal effect order should also examine whether the assessee had deposited the amount of cost in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund or not. 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 Ld. Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025