MAHINDER SINGH,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 03, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2937/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new system of faceless hearings. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for assessment year 2016-17 against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 243 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, considering the ex-parte order and potential communication gaps in the faceless hearing system.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 04.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly decided ex-parte.

2.

Delay of 243 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice and in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in it’s order has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.

4.

Learned departmental representative during the course of hearing vehemently argues 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.

5.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and is of the considered view that since the CIT(A)/NFAC 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.

6.

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 his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →