Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2014-15, which involved proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, affirming the Assessing Officer's additions. There was a 413-day delay in filing the present appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and considering potential communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present its case at its own risk.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order should be upheld, or if the case should be restored for fresh adjudication considering the challenges posed by the newly introduced faceless hearing system.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Date of hearing 26.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.06.2025 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/250/2023-24/1056026849(1), dated 13.09.2023 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 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.
Delay of 413 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal, is condoned in larger interest of justice and Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Mr. Dhanesta, learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any cogent evidence supporting it’s case; and, therefore, it’s instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
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)/NFAC has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel, involving the newly
2 | P a g e introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.
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) 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.