BADIANI PRATAP JETHALAL(HUF),JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(ASSESSMENT UNIT), DELHI
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 a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead its case successfully before the Learned CIT(A). The Tribunal 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. The assessee had sought an adjournment before the appellate authority to file details and documents, but this was not allowed. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) and remitted 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 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest its stand forthwith and was at liberty to submit further evidence. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Badlani Pratap Jethalal (HUF), filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2013-14. The assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte and vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice, as the assessee could not represent its case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond its control. The assessee also sought to submit additional evidence and requested the matter be remitted back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. The Revenue relied on the findings of the assessing officer.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is vitiated on account of violation of the principle of natural justice, turning on Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee could not represent its case before the Learned CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond its control. - The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was ex-parte and thus vitiated by a violation of the principle of natural justice. - The assessee wishes to submit additional evidence to prove its claim. - The matter should be remitted back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: - The Learned DR for the Revenue relied on the finding 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
Appellant by : Shri Om S. Modi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. , Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15/09/2025 : 17/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement Pronouncement ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: . Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated dated 16.05.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 14 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 after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14.
At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and 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 parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. assessee has neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. assessee has neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A), due to circumstances beyond his control, now the assessee wants to CIT(A), due to circumstances beyond his control, now the assessee wants to CIT(A), due to circumstances beyond his control, now the assessee wants to submit additional evidences to pro submit additional evidences to prove its claim, therefore, matter may be remitted ve its claim, therefore, matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue he ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the finding of the relied on the finding of the assessing officer.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth 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 on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws 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 relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non speaking order, therefore, I do do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. 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 note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits 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 based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. The assessee has participated in appellate proceedings and sought The assessee has participated in appellate proceedings and sought The assessee has participated in appellate proceedings and sought adjournment during the appellate proceedings to file details and documents, the appellate proceedings to file details and documents, the appellate proceedings to file details and documents, however, Ld. CIT(A) did not allow further time to the assessee. however, Ld. CIT(A) did not allow further time to the assessee. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected 2 party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. pportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, pportunity of being heard to contest his case. without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, restore the matter back to the file of restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the 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. assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. I hold and assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. direct accordingly. The assessing officer assessing officer will afford opportunity of be will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate it her evidence to substantiate its case. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the fil aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the fil assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, 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 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Order is pronounced in the open court on Order is pronounced in the open court on 17/09/2025.
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 →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026