Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee contended that due to incorrect email communication and non-cooperation of their tax consultant, they could not represent their case before the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the assessee was negligent and wasted the authorities' time.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) did not discuss the case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. While imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard violated principles of natural justice, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147
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 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 referred to as “CIT(A)”] Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated dated 22.07.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2019- after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 20.
Prataprai Ranpriya 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order 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 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. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices were delivered on the wrong email ered on the wrong email-id, therefore, the assessee could not id, therefore, the assessee could not represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel also submitted that Ld. Counsel also submitted that when during the proceedings going on going on before the lower authorities, tax consultant of the before the lower authorities, tax consultant of the assessee did not co-operate with operate with the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not file the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not file the required documents and details before the lower authorities. Now, assessee is the required documents and details before the lower authorities. Now, assessee is the required documents and details before the lower authorities. Now, assessee is ready with all required details and documents, which are to be submitted before the details and documents, which are to be submitted before the details and documents, which are to be submitted before the assessing officer, therefore matter assessing officer, therefore matter may be resorted back to the file of the assessing may be resorted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assess back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 2,000/- may be imposed may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower authorities.
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 of the Act and the of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non Prataprai Ranpriya order, therefore, I do not wish to do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds make any comments on the merits of the 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 he ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits he 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. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Howe ever, on account of non-compliance attitude of the compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost of Rs. cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Re in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Therefore, without delving much without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and re set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the mit the matter back to the file of the Ld. assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For the reasons given For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into a o be looked into afresh by the assessing officer assessing officer in the light of the observations as set out above. light of the observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. The d and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee assessee is treated as allowed.
Prataprai Ranpriya 6.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 16/09/2025.