RAJNEESH SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2)(2), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2582/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's decision was made ex-parte without substantive adjudication. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC, which was passed ex-parte. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal, and the case was proceeded ex-parte. The CIT(A)/NFAC had also refused to condone the delay in filing the lower appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte order lacked substantive adjudication and whether the appeal should be restored to the file for fresh hearing due to potential procedural issues with faceless hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 19.08.2025Pronounced: 19.08.2025

Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Rajneesh Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, 106, Makaramatpur Sikrod Meerut Ward-2(2)(2), Road, Ghaziabad-201003 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DDOPS3508B Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073557101(1) dated 21.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Adjournment rejected.

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It is noticed during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the assessee’s 133 days delay in filing of the lower appeal wherein he had duly made out a case of circumstances beyond control which is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Rajneesh Sharma 4. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. Nor do I find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

5.

Sh. Manoj Kumar vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6.

I have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel involving the newly introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.

7.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →