KISHORKUMAR PRABHATBHAI RATHOD,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

ITA 35/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 April 2026AY 2020-213 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was heard. The assessee contended that they could not represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-service of notices, violating the principles of natural justice. The Revenue argued for a cost to be imposed due to the assessee's negligence.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard. This was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Hearing: 16/03/2026Pronounced: 13/04/2026

आदेश /ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21, 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 05.01.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act, on 30.08.2022.

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 submitted that notices were not issued to the assessee during the assessment proceeding, therefore, the assessee has submitted only part details before the assessing officer. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that now the assessee wants to submit some additional documents and evidences, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, therefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non- compliance attitude.

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 144 of 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

Page 2 of 3 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. 5,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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 Assessing officer 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 assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 13/04/2026.