UMARBHAI MAMADBHAI KUMBHAR,BHADRESHWAR TAL. MUNDRA, DIST. KUTCHH V. THE ITO WARD 5, MUNDRA

ITA 471/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Umarbhai Mamadbhai Kumbhar, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was passed ex-parte. The assessee contended that he was not given a fair opportunity to represent his case as the notices were not properly sent, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the case back to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring that the assessee is given a proper opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775806 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2025
• 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 passing of speaking order
• Section: 147

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, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. UmarbhaiMamadbhai Kumbhar Main Bajar, At Bhadreshwar, Taluka Mundra ᭭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. 471/RJT/2025 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ/Assessment Year: (2010-11) : Smt. Astha Maniyar, Ld. AR : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. : 03/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 ORDER . Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment UmarbhaiMamadbhai Kumbhar Main Bajar, At Bhadreshwar, Vs. The ITO, wd – 5, Ratnakala Arcade, 3rd Floor, Opp. Subham Petrol Pump, Adani Port Road, Mundra – 370411 PAN/GIR No.: BDVPK5460P (ᮧ᭜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), National Faceless Appeal, dated 22.01.2024 of the Income after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Floor, Opp. Subham Petrol Pump, Adani Port Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 471/Rjt/2025 Umarbhai M. Kumbhar 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the 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. proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) did not send the notices on the email Form 35. Moreover, the assessee has opted should be send to the assessee, howeve assessee on his mentioned address, therefore, he could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), and could not submit the required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A), and as a result the Ld.CIT(A) passed the ex adjudicating on merit, therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee is ready with all documents and detail which are to be submitted before the lower authorities, therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed to the opportunity should be given to the as officer, and matter restored may be 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment proceedings. The asse required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 5,000/ on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of th authorities. 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 ld 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 principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel submitted that during the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) did not send the notices on the email- Form 35. Moreover, the assessee has opted in Form Mo. 35, that physical notices should be send to the assessee, however, no physical notices were sent assessee on his mentioned address, therefore, he could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), and could not submit the required documents and details before the Ld. result the Ld.CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without it, therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee all documents and detail which are to be submitted before the lower authorities, therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed to the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing may be back to the file of the assessing officer. he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 5,000/- may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of th 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 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 t during the appellate -id provided in that physical notices r, no physical notices were sent to the assessee on his mentioned address, therefore, he could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), and could not submit the required documents and details before the Ld. parte order without it, therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee all documents and detail which are to be submitted before the lower ench that one more sessee to plead his case before the assessing back to the file of the assessing officer. he ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was ssee did not submitted required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower 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 Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 471/Rjt/2025 Umarbhai M. Kumbhar CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non speaking order, therefore, I do grounds raised by the assessee. 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. Howe 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. above, I am of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into a light of the observations as set out above. assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 14 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. 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 e that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard ever, on account of non-compliance attitude of the cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited 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 the reasons given of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set o be looked into afresh by the assessing officer light of the observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. The will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to note that in the assessee’s case r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- not wish to make any comments on the merits of the 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 e 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 Ld. For the reasons given of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set assessing officer in the d and direct accordingly. The will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before to let in further evidence to Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 471/Rjt/2025 Umarbhai M. Kumbhar substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue 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 The CIT(A) DR, ITAT, RAJKOT Guard File substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue is treated as .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 (True Copy) Copy of the order forwarded to : By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue is treated as .In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "