ABDUL WAHID,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 634/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 July 2025AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, there was a possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced faceless hearing system. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be given three effective opportunities to plead and prove its case, subject to the condition that the taxpayer would do so at its own risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Abdul Wahid, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.12.2024. This order was passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITAT noted that the lower appellate authority, the CIT(A)/NFAC, had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, thereby upholding the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions. The assessee was absent during the hearing before the ITAT, and the appeal was proceeded with ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should restore the assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, given that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as the assessee was absent. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting its case, and therefore, the appeal deserved to be dismissed. The revenue supported the CIT(A)'s finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 03.07.2025Pronounced: 03.07.2025

Date of hearing 03.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.07.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071424888(1), dated 20.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

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

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in its lower appellate order has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.

3.

Learned departmental representative 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.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands 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.

5.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we 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.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →