SITHIRTAI PANDIAN SIVANANDAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld.PCIT's order was passed ex parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee, which is a violation of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an order passed by the Ld.PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the impugned order was passed without proper opportunity and violated natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the order passed by the Ld.PCIT violated the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.PCIT”), Chennai-1, dated 23.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2019-20 u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”).
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld.PCIT without giving proper opportunity to the assessee and there was gross violation of natural justice and therefore, pleaded that assessee should be given one more opportunity before the Ld.PCIT. To buttress this contention, the Ld.AR drew our attention to show cause notice issued by the Ld.PCIT u/s.263 of the Act on 09.02.2024, wherein, the Ld.PCIT had directed the assessee to appear/file reply on or before 14.02.2024 and the assessee sought adjournment for ‘15’ days on 13.02.2024 through the e-filing portal which fact is discernable from Paper-Book at Page No.65. Despite assessee seeking adjournment for ‘15’ days on 13.02.2024, the Ld.PCIT has passed the impugned order on 23.02.2024 ex parte qua assessee, which action according to us, is in violation of natural justice and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.PCIT and restore the revisional proceedings before the Ld.PCIT and direct him to pass the order de novo u/s.263 of the Act in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 18th day of September, 2024, in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026