Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A) u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee remained absent during the hearing, leading the tribunal to proceed ex-parte.
Held
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte against the assessee, without proper adjudication, should be set aside and the appeal restored for fresh hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra
Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Signature Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, S-12, Green Park Main, Green Park Central Circle-6, Market, New Delhi-110016 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAQCS6328G Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071158798(1) dated 12.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex- parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding Signature Homes Pvt. Ltd. disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A) to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.
Mr. Dayainder Singh Sidhu 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.
We 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.
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) 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.