GOL DAMJIBHAI NATHABHAI (HUF),AMRELI vs. ITO, WARD -3(1)(4), , AMRELI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under Section 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which constituted a violation of the principle of natural justice. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance attitude, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Gol Damjibhai Nathabhai (HUF), filed an appeal against the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee contended that the impugned order was ex-parte and vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice, as notices were not properly served, preventing them from presenting their case before the CIT(A). The assessee sought to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, intending to submit additional documents and evidence. The Revenue, represented by the Ld. DR, argued for imposing a cost on the assessee due to negligence and non-compliance.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is vitiated on account of violation of the principle of natural justice, thereby requiring a de novo adjudication? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was bad in law as it violated the principle of natural justice. They claimed that notices were not properly served, preventing them from appearing and presenting their case. They sought to submit additional documents and evidence and requested the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the assessee was negligent and did not appear before the lower authorities, and therefore, a cost should be imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
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, Accountant Member: . Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed 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 17.06.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 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 2020- after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 21.
Gol RashiklalNathabhai 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 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 the Bench that now assessee wants to submit Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that now assessee wants to submit some Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that now assessee wants to submit additional documents and evidences, th additional documents and evidences, therefore, matter may be restored back to the erefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 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 fore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non- fore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non compliance attitude.
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 lied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld lied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. CIT(A) and other 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 143(3) 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 assed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking assed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds do not wish to 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. Gol RashiklalNathabhai 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 hen based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of ce 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 play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account o However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost of Rs. cost of Rs. 5,000/- 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 Ld. Assessing officer Ld. Assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merit to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical s. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. purposes, 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
