BALDEVBHAI MAGANBHAI KASUNDRA,MORBI V. ITO WD 1, MORBI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 331/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Baldevbhai Maganbhai Kasundra Chitrakut Society against the order of the CIT(A), which was passed without a hearing due to non-service of notices. The assessee contended that the order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order was based on an assessment under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental right under the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775797 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं (िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] 25.03.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here Assessment Year 2015-16. Baldevbhai Maganbhai Kasundra Chitrakut Society, Sanala Road, Morbi - 363641 ᭭थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोटɊायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 331/RJT/2025 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ/Assessment Year: (2015-16) : Shri Viraj Kapuria, Ld. AR : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. : 11/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 ORDER AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] n the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Baldevbhai Maganbhai Kasundra Chitrakut Society, Sanala Road, Vs. Income Tax Department, Shakti Chambers, NH 27, Anand Nagar, Morbi - 363642 PAN/GIR No.: BFVPK7026K (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , Ld. Sr. DR The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 143(3) r.w.s.147 after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Shakti Chambers, NH 27, Anand Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 331/Rjt/2025 Baldevbhai Maganbhai Kasundra 2. 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 submitted that notices were not issued to the assessee during the assessment assessee has submitted only part details before the assessing officer. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed some additional documents and evidences, to the file of the assessing officer 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, therefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non compliance attitude. 4.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 CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 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. 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 parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices were not issued to the assessee during the assessment proceeding, therefore, assessee has submitted only part details before the assessing officer. On appeal, ), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed to the Bench that now assessee wants to submit additional documents and evidences, therefore, matter may be restored back e of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, herefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non 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 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 Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 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 parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices , therefore, the assessee has submitted only part details before the assessing officer. On appeal, ), the assessee could not appear because notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. the Bench that now assessee wants to submit therefore, matter may be restored back he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in his approach and did not appear before the Lower Authorities, herefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of his non- 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. note that in the assessee’s case 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 331/Rjt/2025 Baldevbhai Maganbhai Kasundra 5. Considering the above facts, 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. However, on account of non assessee, I imposed a cost of Rs. in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, to the file of assessing officer after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and re assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order is pronounced in the open court on राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 11/09/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to : The assessee The Respondent CIT 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. 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 t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair uire that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited Minister National Relief Fund.Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back 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 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 11/09/2025. Sd/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the order forwarded to : note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. 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 t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair uire that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard compliance attitude of the on the assessee which should be deposited without delving much restore the matter back adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is deem it fit and proper to mit the matter back to the file of the to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 331/Rjt/2025 Baldevbhai Maganbhai Kasundra The CIT(A) DR, ITAT, RAJKOT Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "