Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 444 days, which was condoned. The assessee remained absent during the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte and there was a possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, considering the ex-parte order and potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment system.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Surender Singh Chauhan, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village-Karbera, Mohan Nagar, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad-201007 Ghaziabad-201001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADYPC6319D Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057584595(1) dated 01.11.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Delay of 444 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).
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded Surender Singh Chauhan 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.
Mr. Sudeep Dabas 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.