RAKESH CHITRANJAN BANGDIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits and failed to adjudicate all grounds. Therefore, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee could not appear due to non-service of hearing notice. The assessee contended that this violated the principles of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 17.08.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 11.12.2017.
At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that 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. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that during the appellate
ITA.686/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Rakesh Chitranjan Bangdiwala proceedings, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), as no notice of hearing was served on him. Therefore, ld. Counsel contended that an opportunity to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A), may be granted, to the assessee.
On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. That is, ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate all the grounds raised by assessee. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). 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. 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 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, 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 ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
ITA.686/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Rakesh Chitranjan Bangdiwala 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 21/12/2023 in the open court.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026