VANDANABEN RAJESH CHAUDHARY,SURAT vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT, SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require the affected party to be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte because the notice of hearing was not served. 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 due to non-service of notice on the assessee.
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
O R D E R
PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-13/Intl.Taxn/Ahd/211/2019-20 dated 11.11.2020, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 24.12.2019.
At the outset itself, the ld. 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, notice of hearing could not be served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not submit the documents and evidences before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Learned Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Assessment Year. 2012-13 Vandanaben Rajesh Chaudhary 3. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully 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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 08/02/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026