KALYAN SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-prosecution, alleging a violation of natural justice. The assessee contended that they were not properly served with notices for the hearings, thus debarring them from presenting their case.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the appeal without proper service of notice and without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Tin Box Company vs. CIT.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HONBLE & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HONBLE
Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.Μ.: These Appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Central, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NFAC/CIT(A)"] in respect of assessment year 2018-19 challenging therein ex- parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for Non-prosecution in violation of principles of natural justice.
The assessee filed the captioned two appeals in ITA No. 161 and 162/Jodh/2024 against the impugned order which are pertaining to the same assessment Year 2018-19 and hence merged and adjudicated together, on the common issue of violation of principles of natural justice.
None appeared for the assessee. However, having heard the Ld. Addl CIT DR and perused the material available on record, we find that ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee by stating that appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, as there was no response to the notice of hearings from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the facts of the date of service of these notices on the assessee issued u/s 250 of the Act, to enable the assessee to present his submissions in defence of the claims made in the grounds of appeal. In the present case, the factum of service of notice of hearing on the assessee is neither mentioned nor inferred from the record that certainly tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice and debarred the assessee an adequate opportunity to argue it case before the CIT (A) on merits.
In our view, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits after granting adequate opportunity by proper service of notice on the assessee and he deemed to have disproved the claim of the assesse by rebutting its contention with support of corroborative documentary evidence on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment - Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done - Fact that the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is assessment order that counts - Assessment order set aside and matter remanded to assessing authority for fresh consideration."
Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice, it would be appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate
the appeal of the assessee afresh by addressing the grounds of appeal on merit of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the written submissions and documentary evidences filed on record and may be filed in the de novo appellate proceedings. In the case, the CIT (A) is not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, and he intends to take any adverse view against the appellant-assessee, may be allowed an opportunity to rebut.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate the issue de novo in accordance with law.
In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20/08/2025 in the open Court. (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Doc* Dated : 20../08/2025 Copies to: (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER By Oder
