SAVITRI ELECTRONICS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 22(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 4615/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2025AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. It was of the considered view that given the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, communication gaps between the taxpayer and counsel, especially with the newly introduced faceless hearing system, could not be ruled out. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities for the assessee to plead and prove its case, with the rider that the taxpayer would do so at its own risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Savitri Electronics P. Ltd., filed an appeal for assessment year 2017-18 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC), Delhi. The CIT(A)/NFAC's order, dated 29.04.2024, was passed ex-parte, affirming the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 393 days, which was condoned. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, and the appeal was proceeded with ex-parte. The Department argued that the appeal should be dismissed as the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 393 days in filing the appeal (question of fact and law). 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee, thereby affirming the Assessing Officer's additions (question of law). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. Revenue's contentions: The learned departmental representative argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting its case, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The revenue supported the CIT(A)'s finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064442789(1), dated 29.04.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Delay of 393 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).

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.

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.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are 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.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we 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 own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →