TULSIDAS CHELARAM VIDHANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR
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 impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. It was held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard, constituting a violation of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17 and is directed against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The assessee contended that they could not represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the order was ex-parte due to non-service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Violation of principles of natural justice due to ex-parte and non-speaking order by CIT(A) and lack of opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
Assessment Year: (2016-17) Tulsidas Chelaram Vidhani Income Tax Officer, D – 45, Gandhinagar – Jamnager-61008 Vs. Ward-2(1), Jamnagar - 361008 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADTPV6834F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per,Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI AM; Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), dated 29.08.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 19.05.2023.
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. During the appellate proceedings, the notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not submit relevant documents and evidences before the ld.CIT(A). Now, the assessee wish to submit some more additional evidences before the assessing officer.
Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer 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’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s.144B 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. Considering the above facts, I 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’s 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 assessing officer 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, I 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 assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment, proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026