Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2017-18. The assessee argued that the ex-parte order from the CIT(A) was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Since the assessee's quantum appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals were also remitted back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violates the principle of natural justice, and whether the penalty appeals should be remitted for fresh adjudication along with the quantum appeal.
Sections Cited
270A, 271AAC1
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: . Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The present two appeal appeals have been filed by the same Assessee, against the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] both Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] order dated 08.07.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 270A arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. & 271AAC1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
& 540/Rjt/2025 Apex Irrigation v. ITO 2. Since, the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical both these appeals are clubbed and heard togeth both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and decided by the consolidated er and decided by the consolidated order for sake of convenience and brevity convenience and brevity.
At the outset itself, the L At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that argued that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal of the assessee i Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal of the assessee i No. 94/Rjt/2025 (Apex irrigation) 94/Rjt/2025 (Apex irrigation) has been remitted back to the file of the ted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Since, the quantum appeal has been remitted CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Since, the quantum appeal has been remitted CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Since, the quantum appeal has been remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, these appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, these appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, these appeals should also be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR for the Revenue . The ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) Ld. CIT(A).
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 relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the including the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the L s case successfully before the Ld.CIT(A). I note that the assessee I note that the assessee’s quantum appeal in ITA 94/Rjt/2025 has been remitted back to the quantum appeal in ITA 94/Rjt/2025 has been remitted back to the file of the quantum appeal in ITA 94/Rjt/2025 has been remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, these two penalty appeals pertain to quantum appeal CIT(A), therefore, these two penalty appeals pertain to quantum appeal should CIT(A), therefore, these two penalty appeals pertain to quantum appeal also be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to the direction to the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate these penalty te these penalty appeals as per the outcome of the quantum outcome of the quantum appeal. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the 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) interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de novo interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A)
& 540/Rjt/2025 Apex Irrigation v. ITO adjudication and pass a speaki adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of ng order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the mat d.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) CIT(A) to adjudicate these penalty appeals as per the outcome of the quantum appeal. For statistical as per the outcome of the quantum appeal. For statistical as per the outcome of the quantum appeal. For statistical purposes, both the appeals of the assessee are s of the assessee are treated as allowed
In the result, the appeal In the result, the appeals of the assessee (ITA No. 539&540/Rjt/2025 for AY 540/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) are allowed, for statistical purposes for statistical purposes Order is pronounced in the open court on Order is pronounced in the open court on 17/09/2025.