SHRI RATANKUMAR KISHORILAL BANSAL,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO-WARD-1, , GANDHIDHAM

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 250(6)

ITA 88/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 April 2025AY 2009-2010Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the issue was not decided as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A), which arose from an order by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that they could not represent their case before the CIT(A) as notices were not served, leading to an ex-parte order and a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to non-service of notices, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Hearing: 12/03/2025Pronounced: 30/04/2025

Date of Hearing : 12/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM; Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide order dated 04/12/2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, dated 21/12/2011, u/s 144 r.w.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

At the outset itself, Learned 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. The assessee could not A.Y 09-10 Sh. Ratankumar K Bansal appear before the ld. CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings, as none of the notices, issued by the ld. CIT (A) were served on the assessee. The ld. Counsel submitted that assessee wants to submit some details and documents before the assessing officer. Therefore, the 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 noted that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) 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. I note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal, as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee, to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. 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, 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 after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidence A.Y 09

10. Sh. Ratankumar K Bansal

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →