Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18 were processed ex-parte by the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear, and the tribunal proceeded with the hearing without their representation.
Held
The tribunal recognized the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in proceeding ex-parte without ensuring proper communication, and whether the appeals should be restored for a 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 : 2017-18 Israni Buildwell 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. AABCI6565N 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 Bench: These assessee’s three appeals 755 & 756/Del/2025, for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2016-17 and 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071162298(1), 1071162402(1) & 1071162474(1) dated 12.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Cases 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) detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte 755 & 756/Del/2025 Israni Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding 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 appeals 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