ANIL KUMAR VARSHNEY,SAMBHAL vs. ITO WARD 2(5), CHANDAUSI

ITA 3138/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2025AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, which upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte against the assessee was justified, and if there were communication gaps leading to the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
3,926 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: DR |

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.3138/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Assessee by | None Department by | Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing | 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement | 22.07.2025

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/250/2024-25/1071408940(1), dated 20.12.2024, involving proceedings under section 144 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. Delay of 74 days in filing the assessee's instant appeal, is condoned in larger interest of justice and 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. - 5. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate, in the larger interest of justice, 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.

This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2025

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 22nd July, 2025.

RK/-

Copy forwarded to:

- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →