ANIL KUMAR,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) GURGAON, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3292/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the lower appellate authority had proceeded ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication within three effective opportunities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arose against an order that involved proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The case was called twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the proceedings were ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the lower appellate authority due to ex-parte proceedings and potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment system.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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: 24.07.2025Pronounced: 24.07.2025

Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 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 DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051229890(1), dated 24.03.2023 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. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 719 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

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

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →