VANDANA BHURA,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD,, NOKHA
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, alleging a violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal, stating that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting it due to no response to hearing notices. However, the factum of service of these notices was not clearly mentioned or inferred.
Held
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was a violation of the principles of natural justice as it was passed without adequately proving the service of hearing notices and providing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Tin Box Company vs. CIT, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to inadequate proof of service of hearing notices and lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Sections Cited
250 of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HONʼBLE & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HONBLE
PER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: ITO, Ward-, Nokha. None. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR. 29.04.2025. 27.05.2025. This Appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Central, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NFAC/CIT(A)"] dated 25.11.2025 in respect of assessment year 2017-18 challenging therein ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) for Non-prosecution in violation of principles of natural justice.
None appeared for the assessee. However, we heard the Ld. Addl CIT DR and perused the material available on record, and 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 has 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 ld. 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 27/05/2025 in the open Court. (RAJpal YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27.05.2025 Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By Oder
