Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was initially barred by 39 days, which the tribunal condoned. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte, violating natural justice, as they could not represent their case. The tribunal noted the CIT(A) order was indeed ex-parte and non-speaking.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 39-day delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order on merits.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of a 39-day delay in filing the appeal and the violation of natural justice due to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2026 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M
Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2013- 14, 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 15.09.2025, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 23.08.2019.
The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 39 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condonation the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of communication gap between Shantilal R. Gajera assessee and advocate, the delay of 39 days has arisen, which may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. However, Ld. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay.
I have gone through the petition for condonation of delay. I have note that the reasons explained in the petition for condonation of delay is convincing in nature and the assessee has explained sufficient cause, therefore I condone the minor delay of 39 days and admit the appeal of the assesse for hearing.
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 assessing officer 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 143(3) r.w.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 Page 2 of Shantilal R. Gajera 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 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, 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 assessing officer to adjudicate 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 pronounced in the open court on 06/02/2026.