KARSHAN MANSUKH SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),RAJKOT, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case before the Learned CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, constituting a violation of the principle of natural justice. It is a settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require the affected party to be granted a sufficient opportunity to be heard. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Without delving into the merits, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication. The assessing officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest his stand forthwith and was at liberty to submit further evidence. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Karshan Mansukh Solanki, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 11.12.2023. This order arose from an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's primary contention was that the impugned order was ex-parte and vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice, as the assessee, being a farmer and uneducated, was unaware of the proceedings and had not received notices. The revenue's representative noted the assessee's non-appearance before both the assessing officer and the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is vitiated on account of violation of the principle of natural justice, thereby denying the assessee an adequate opportunity to represent his case? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the order was ex-parte and violated the principle of natural justice because he, being a farmer and uneducated, was unaware of the proceedings before the assessing officer and did not receive notices. Similarly, no notices were served for the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), preventing him from presenting his case. The assessee sought another opportunity to contest the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that the assessee had not appeared before the assessing officer or the CIT(A). The revenue suggested that if the case were to be remitted back to the assessing officer, a cost should be imposed on the assessee.
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
ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A . 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 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]11.12.2023 Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.14 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.144 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 2017- after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 18.
Karshan Mansukh Solanki 2. 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 is a farmer and uneducated, therefore, he did not have knowledge of the assessee is a farmer and uneducated, therefore, he did not have knowledge of the assessee is a farmer and uneducated, therefore, he did not have knowledge of the faceless assessment proceedings, besides, no notices were issued by the assessing faceless assessment proceedings, besides, no notices were issued by the assessing faceless assessment proceedings, besides, no notices were issued by the assessing officer, therefore assessee was unaware about the proceedings before the assessing see was unaware about the proceedings before the assessing see was unaware about the proceedings before the assessing officer. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A) again the notices were officer. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A) again the notices were not not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not reply during the appellate proceedings. assessee, therefore, the assessee could not reply during the appellate proceedings. assessee, therefore, the assessee could not reply during the appellate proceedings. The ld. Counsel for the assess The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another ee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the may be granted to the assessee.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee that the assessee had neither appeared before the assessing officer nor appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), he assessing officer nor appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), he assessing officer nor appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, if the bench wants to remitted therefore, if the bench wants to remitted the case back to the file of the assessing back to the file of the assessing officer, then in that circumstances circumstances the cost should be imposed on the assessee. the assessee.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth 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. ials 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 144 of the Act and the of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and n 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 n order, therefore, I do not wish to make do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Karshan Mansukh Solanki 5. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case succe opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. ssfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits . CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits . CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation 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 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 ted party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard ted party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non However, on account of non-compliance attitude compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/ cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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 ficer 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. also directed to contest his stand forthwith. For the reasons given above, For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the order of th the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the e CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the assessing officer in the light of the in the light of the observations as set out above. observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate is treated as allowed. case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
7.In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
