Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 arose from an order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The case was called twice, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The CIT(A)/NFAC had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new system of faceless hearings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte proceedings and potential communication gaps in faceless hearings.
Sections Cited
154, 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
Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Shakti Shiksha Nyas, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1024, Shakti Mandir, Darya Ganj, Exemption Ward-2(1), New delhi-110006 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADTS6410K Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074323967(1) dated 11.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 154 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.