DELIGHT DIAM PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI/ INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1)(1), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated and the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
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 notice. The CIT(A) also failed to pass an order as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, not adjudicating all grounds.
What were the issues?
Violation of principles of natural justice due to ex parte order and failure of CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.
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) 2018-19, 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 03.02.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 19.04.2021.
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 proceedings, the assessee could
ITA.204/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Delight Diam P. Ltd. not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), as no notice of hearing was served on him. The ld. CIT(A) also did not pass order as per mandate of provision of Section 250(6) of the Act. 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. The Ld. DR also pointed out that all the grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A), therefore matter may be remitted back to the file of 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.204/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Delight Diam P. Ltd. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 03/07/2023 in the open court.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026