INDU HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2547/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was passed ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the proceedings were ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC without proper adjudication is sustainable, and if the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 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

Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 10.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Indu Hospital and Research Centre Vs DCIT, Pvt. Ltd., A-98-A, Sector-34, Circle-5(1)(1), Noida, U. P. -201301 Noida, U. P.-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACI9041C 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 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069319876(1) dated 01.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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 →