Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arose from an ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte proceedings before the CIT(A)/NFAC were justified, considering potential communication issues with the new faceless system.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
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
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Brij Veer Singh, Vill.- Mundt Khurd, Ward-3(1)(4), Distt. Shamli, Shamli Uttar Pradesh PAN: AUFPS9785B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, 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/250/2024-25/1071942724(1), dated 07.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in it’s lower appellate order has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.
We 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, we deem it appropriate, in the larger interest of justice, to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his 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.