Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order passed by the NFAC. The assessee failed to appear before the NFAC despite notices, and an adjournment was sought but denied. The DR defended the NFAC's order, stating sufficient notices were issued.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the mode of service was unclear and the merits of the issue were not examined. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issue back to the NFAC to pass a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity of being heard, and if the impugned order was passed without examining the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year: 2017-18 S.K. Impex, Vs ITO, J-23, G14 J Block, Ward-22(3), Khasra No.6/3, Delhi. Saroop Nagar, Delhi – 110 042. PAN: ACUFS5508B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.02.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC.
None has appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing. Heard ld. DR. An adjournment application was filed seeking adjournment of the case. On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee has failed to appear before the NFAC. The ld. DR has defended the order of the NFAC submitting that sufficient notices were given. However, we find that it is not coming up from