BALDEVBHAI MAGANBHAI KASUNDRA,MORBI vs. ITO WD 1, MORBI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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 natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices were not issued to the assessee during the assessment were not issued to the assessee during the assessment proceeding, therefore, , therefore, the assessee has submitted only part details before the assessing officer. On appeal, assessee has submitted only part details before the assessing officer. On appeal, assessee has submitted only part details before the assessing officer. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear because notices were not ), the assessee could not appear because notices were not ), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed to the Bench that now assessee wants to submit the Bench that now assessee wants to submit some additional documents and evidences, additional documents and evidences, therefore, matter may be restored back therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer e of the assessing 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 in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, negligent in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, 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 herefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non- herefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non compliance attitude.

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. 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 uire that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard uire that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non However, 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 Relief Fund. 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 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. 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 11/09/2025.