SITHIRTAI PANDIAN MANICKARAJ,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 passing an ex parte order by the Ld.PCIT without considering the assessee's adjournment request was a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the order of the Ld.PCIT dated 23.02.2024 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's representative pointed out that the impugned order was passed without proper opportunity, violating natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the Ld.PCIT's order passed ex parte against the assessee for violating natural justice.
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. 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 order de novo u/s.263 of the Act 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 →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026