MEENU GOGIA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5863/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 June 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, and there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The case was called twice, and the assessee did not appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte proceedings before the CIT(A)/NFAC were justified, and if not, whether the case should be remanded 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

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Meenu Gogia, Vs Income Tax Officer, 90/59A, Malviya Nagar, Ward-28(1), New Delhi-110017 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANKPG6983F Assessee by: None Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069872491(1) dated 23.10.2024, 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. She 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.

Ms. Indu Bala Saini 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 →