Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2019-20 and challenges an order passed by the NFAC/CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to plead their case. Consequently, the Tribunal found a violation of the principle of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144
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 2019-20, 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 20.11.2025, 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 27.12.2024.
Zenith Rajeshbhai Gandhi v. ITO 2. 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 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 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 submission 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 assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147/144 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. However, on account of non- compliance attitude of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs. 500/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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
Page 2 of 3 on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open Court on 13/04/2026.