SARASWATIBEN JAYNTILAL SOMAIYA,BHUJ V. ITO OFFICER, ITO WARD BHUJ

ITA 174/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Saraswatiben Jayantilal Somaiya against the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the orders were passed ex-parte without adequate representation or hearing of the assessee. The Tribunal noted the absence of a speaking order from the CIT(A) and the non-compliance attitude of the assessee, leading to the imposition of a cost and the restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772950 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोटÆयायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 174/RJT/2025 (िनधाªरणवषª/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 ORDER 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 dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]16.01.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the outset itself, I note that 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 order passed by the assessing officer as well as order passed by Saraswatiben Jayantilal Somaiya, Shop No. 1, Classic Complex, Lal Tekri, Near Gurudwara, Bhuj - 370001 Vs. ITO Officer Ward – 4 Near Leva Patel Hospital, Bhuj - 370001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALCPS9691Q (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 174/Rjt/2025 Saraswatiben Jayntilal Somaiya Ld. CIT(A), both are ex-parte order. The assessee did not appear despite of issuance of notice of hearing. 3. 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, and matter may be restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. 4. I have heard Ld. DR for the Revenue, 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. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the 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. 5. 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. 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-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a minimum cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. If the assessee did not deposit the cost in Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days of receipt of this order, then this order shall be deemed as vacation, and assessee’s appeal would be treated as Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 174/Rjt/2025 Saraswatiben Jayntilal Somaiya dismissed. The Assessing Officer, while passing the appeal effect order should also examine whether the assessee had deposited the amount of cost in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund or not. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. 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 Ld. 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 22/09/2025 Sd/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 22/09/2025 TRUE COPY Copy of the order forwarded to : The assessee The Respondent CIT The CIT(A) DR, ITAT, RAJKOT Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "