Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A)/NFAC order for AY 2017-18, where proceedings before the CIT(A)/NFAC were conducted ex-parte, leading to the affirmation of disallowances/additions without substantive appellate adjudication. The assessee also did not appear before the Tribunal, which proceeded ex-parte.
Held
Considering the ex-parte proceedings at the CIT(A)/NFAC level and the possibility of communication gaps in faceless hearings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC order passed ex-parte without substantive adjudication is valid, and if the case should be restored for fresh hearing given communication challenges in the faceless assessment system.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 1, Village-Asmoli, Sambhal, Ward-1(5), Uttar Pradesh-244302 Sambhal, U.P.-244302 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAOAS3089C Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047353931(1) dated 15.11.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. Nor do I find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the
Mr. Manoj Kumar 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.
I 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, I 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.