Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC/CIT(A). The assessee contended that proper notices were not served, preventing them from presenting their case before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer had passed an order under section 147 r.w.s 144, and made an addition under section 69A.
Held
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal decided not to comment on the merits of the case and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to non-service of proper notices and whether the addition made under section 69A was erroneous.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश /ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, 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 (Appeals) (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dated 28.11.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, on 29.09.2021.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. The Ld. AO has erred in passing order u/s 144. The appellant has submitted all the relevant evidences while submitting his response to the notice and the A.O. has also discussed about submission made by the appellant. Accordingly passing order u/s 144 is erroneous.
2. The Ld. AO has erred in making addition u/s 69A. The appellant has submitted all the relevant evidences to prove the source of cash deposit. The assessee has in his submission specified all the facts, source from which cash received and purpose for which it was utilized. Accordingly, the same was duly explained and accordingly making addition u/s 69A is bad in law.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or withdraw one or more grounds of appeal.”
3. 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 the Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), notices of hearings were not served properly on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not submit the details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A). Now, the assessee is ready to submit required details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.
The Ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the Ld. Counsel.
We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions 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. We note that in the Page 2 of 4 assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147r.w.s 144 the Act and the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). We 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. We 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, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) 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, we 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 Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 13/04/2026.