Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 challenged an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC/CIT(A) under Section 250, which arose from an assessment order under Section 147. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A).
Held
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a sufficient opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
आदेश/ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.
Captioned appeal filed by 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), dated 04.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 of the Act on 27.03.2025.
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)
Dilip J. Pandya 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.
I 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. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I 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. I 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, I 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, I 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 Page 2 of Dilip J. Pandya the issue afresh 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 06/02/2026.