MALATHI GOPAL PATHANGE,MYSORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 773/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Malathi Gopal Pathange, against an order passed by the CIT(A) which was claimed to have violated the principles of natural justice. The main contention was the absence of a hearing notice to the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement under section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed the order without providing a hearing to the assessee, thus violating the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705523 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GHALE; STANDING
• Assessee Lawyers: S DARSHAN BOTHRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 773/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Malathi Gopal Pathange, 303, Srinivasa Residency, 6th Main Road, Gokulam Main Road, VV Mohallal, Mysore – 570 002. PAN – AATPP 7202 L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2)(1), Bengaluru . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S Darshan Bothra, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 19.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 27/01/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072601178(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. ITA No.773/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 . 2. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, but the main issue is whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in passing the order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3. During the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) violates the provisions of section 250(1) of the Act, 1961, because no notice of hearing was served on the assessee. The learned AR stated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order without giving the assessee a chance to present her case. He emphasized that as per section 250(1) of the Act, it is mandatory to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard before passing any order. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee as per law. 4. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue did not controvert the submission made by the learned AR regarding the non-issuance of notice under section 250(1) of the Act. 5. We have heard both parties and carefully gone through the materials on record. It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee. As per section 250(1) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) is required to fix a date and give notice of the hearing to the assessee before disposing of the appeal. In this case, no such notice was given, and the order was passed ex parte. This is a clear violation of the provisions of section 250(1) and also against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter should be restored ITA No.773/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 . to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 2nd day of July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, July, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "