Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 08/09/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M
The two present appeals have 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)”]29.08.2024 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 2012-13 & 2013-14.
The appeal filed by the assessee in for Assessment Year 2012-13, is barred by limitation by 40 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay that due to holidays in Gujarat on account of Diwali and Gujarati New Year, the consultant was unable to prepare the appeal documents without availability of proper documents. Besides, the assessee suffers from partial vision loss and was not available in town. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. I heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone the delay and admit the appeal in for hearing.
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 contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.
The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.
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 case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) 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.
6. Considering the above facts, we 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 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. Therefore, we 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. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits.
For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/09/2025.