SHOBHA CHAND,KARNAL vs. ITO-WARD-1-KARNAL, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1783/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 July 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte, and acknowledging potential communication issues with the faceless system, it was appropriate to restore the appeal. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The case was called twice, but the assessee did not appear, leading to ex-parte proceedings and affirmations of the Assessing Officer's additions. The tribunal noted potential communication gaps in the faceless hearing system.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC is sustainable when there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system, and whether the appeal should be restored to the assessee for a 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: 03.07.2025Pronounced: 03.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Shobha Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, VPO Ballah, Dist. Karnal, Ward-1, Haryana-132040 Karnal, Haryana-132001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ASVPC8362Q Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072501996(1) dated 24.02.2025, 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. He 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. 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.

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 →