IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2019-20 Godavari Vijay Kulkarni ITO, Ward 1(1), L/H of Late Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni V Aurangabad B2/8, Building Kasliwal Classic, Phase I, s.

Tapdiya Nagar, Aurangabad – 431005 PAN: APAPK8081Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ms. Arrchena Shetty Department by : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR Date of hearing : 27-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 03-04-2025

O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, VP :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

08.09.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2019-20.

2. This is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal.

3. This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal vide ITA No.1159/PUN/2023, order dated 12.03.2024. The assessee filed an appeal before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court and the Hon‟ble High Court vide Writ Petition No.17572 of 2024, order dated 04.02.2025 set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the issue to the file of the Tribunal by observing as under:

“21. At the very outset in our view this is a case where the violation of the settled principles of natural justice is not just apparent but real, palpable and clearly visible. The petitioner is deprived of an opportunity to present its case not only before the respondent no. 2 but also subsequently before the ITAT. In not affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present its case had perpetuated from the ex-parte order passed by respondent no. 2 which in our opinion was not noticed by the ITAT in passing the impugned order.

22. It is not disputed that the jurisdictional assessing officer, i.e., respondent no. 2 under the faceless regime passed an ex-parte assessment order, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Thus, evaluation of assessment of the petitioner's income and rejecting the submissions of the petitioner was undertaken also ought to have been appropriately undertaken by following the natural rules of fairness adhering to the principles of natural justice and such infirmity at least should have been addressed by the ITAT in passing the impugned order.

23. A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT makes it clear that it proceeded to deal with the case of the petitioner on merits as is evident from paragraph 5 of its order. The petitioner submitted that considering the fact that the order impugned before the ITAT itself was passed by respondent no. 2 was passed ex- parte, it would be just and WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc proper for the ITAT to remand the matter to respondent no. 2 for passing orders on merits, after considering submissions of the petitioner. Also, the written submissions being tendered on behalf of the petitioner before the ITAT on 12 March 2024 the same appear to have not being considered in the impugned order being passed by the Tribunal. We may refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union.1 The Supreme Court inter alia held that Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to a person who is adversely affected by an administrative order. The principle of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

24. In the facts and circumstances of the given case, it will be apposite to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar.2 The Supreme Court in interpreting the section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 has held that the appellate tribunal was bound to give a proper decision on question of fact as well as law, which can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not di