Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-20, raising various grounds including the legality of assessment reopening, disallowance of bad debts, and procedural issues with notices. The assessee contended that the revenue's allegations pertained to a different project than the one involved in the appeal, a factual aspect not considered by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned speaking order after providing the assessee a full opportunity of being heard, with the assessee obliged to submit all evidence and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating merits and violating natural justice. 2. Legality of assessment reopening under Section 147 and disallowances of bad debts and expenses under Sections 36(1)(vii), 28, and 37. 3. Propriety of notices issued under Section 142(1) given transfer from Faceless Assessing Officer under Section 144B(8).
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 250(6), Section 147, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 28, Section 37, Section 142(1), Section 144B(8)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte resulting in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case resulting in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act.
3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and is not permissible either in law or on facts.
4. The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,31,16,367/-only on the basis of allegations.
5. Alternatively and without prejudice, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the expense which is allowable u/s 28 and 37 of the Act. - Aatash Notcontrol Limited Vs. DCIT Asst.Year :2019-20 - 2–
6. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, as transfer from Faceless Assessing Officer to JOA is not proper as per law specified u/s 144B(8) of the Act, hence resultant order is bad in law.
7. The Ld. AO has passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time-to-time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the Ld. AO is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.”
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this case. The Ld. DR placed before us an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2020 and argued that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has got an impact on the adjudication of the case.
4. Rebutting the submissions of the Ld. DR, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had undertaken two separate projects with the Gujarat Maritime Board, one at Gulf of Kutch and another at the Gulf of Khambat. It was submitted that the allegations referred to by the Revenue pertain to the project at the Gulf of Khambat, whereas the transactions involved in the present appeal relate to the Gulf of Kutch project. It was further submitted that these vital factual aspects were neither examined by the Assessing Officer nor considered by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it was pleaded that in the interest of justice, the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a reasoned speaking order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall submit all the evidences which they rely upon in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Heard, dictated and pronounced in the open court today on 13.01.2026 (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 13.01.2026 **btk - Aatash Notcontrol Limited Vs. DCIT Asst.Year :2019-20 - 3–