ADITYA KUMAR,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEERUT, UP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2764/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and there might have been communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an order passed ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed with a delay of 116 days, which was condoned. The assessee did not appear at the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte should be upheld, or if the appeal should be remanded for fresh adjudication considering potential communication gaps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 17.07.2025Pronounced: 17.07.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Aditya Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 501, Tower-8, Parsvnath Green Meerut, Ville, Sohna Road, Sector-48, U.P.-250001 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFBPK1621F Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069614635(1) dated 11.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Delay of 116 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded Aditya Kumar 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 Act requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →