UMARBHAI MAMADBHAI KUMBHAR,BHADRESHWAR TAL. MUNDRA, DIST. KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 5, MUNDRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, and the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, which constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice. Citing the settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require adequate opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. 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 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest their stand forthwith and was at liberty to let in further evidence. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, due to their non-compliance attitude. The appeal of the revenue was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Umarbhai Mamadbhai Kumbhar, filed an appeal against the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing proper notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee claimed that notices were not sent to the provided email ID or physical address, preventing them from representing their case and submitting necessary documents. The revenue argued that the assessee was negligent during assessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically the failure to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as per Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the order was ex-parte and vitiated because the CIT(A) failed to send notices to the provided email ID and physical address, thus preventing the assessee from presenting their case and submitting required documents. The assessee requested an opportunity to plead their case before the assessing officer and for the matter to be restored. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that the assessee was negligent during assessment proceedings and did not submit required details. They suggested imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee if the matter was remitted back to the assessing officer.
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 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 Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated dated 22.01.2024 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11.
Umarbhai M. Kumbhar 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order 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. principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel submitted that during the appellate t during the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) did not send the notices on the email proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) did not send the notices on the email- -id provided in Form 35. Moreover, the assessee has opted Form 35. Moreover, the assessee has opted in Form Mo. 35, that physical notices that physical notices should be send to the assessee, howeve should be send to the assessee, however, no physical notices were sent r, no physical notices were sent to the assessee on his mentioned address, therefore, he could not appear before the Ld. assessee on his mentioned address, therefore, he could not appear before the Ld. assessee on his mentioned address, therefore, he could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), and could not submit the required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A), and could not submit the required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A), and could not submit the required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A), and as a result the Ld.CIT(A) passed the ex result the Ld.CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without parte order without adjudicating on merit, therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee it, therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee it, therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee is ready with all documents and detail which are to be submitted before the lower all documents and detail which are to be submitted before the lower all documents and detail which are to be submitted before the lower authorities, therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed to the authorities, therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed to the Bench that one more ench that one more opportunity should be given to the as opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing sessee to plead his case before the assessing officer, and matter restored may be may be back to the file of the assessing officer. back to the file of the assessing officer.
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 asse during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted ssee did not submitted required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 5,000/ back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 5,000/- may be imposed may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of th 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 th 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 Umarbhai M. Kumbhar 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 r.w.s. 14 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non speaking order, therefore, I do do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 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 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 e that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard e that the 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. 5,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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 deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to to let in further evidence to Umarbhai M. Kumbhar substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue is treated as substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue is treated as substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed.
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 11/09/2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026