SATISH KUMAR JOON,ROHTAK vs. GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 2291/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2025AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the larger interest of justice and the possibility of communication gaps, particularly with the introduction of faceless hearings, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case, at their own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the disallowances or additions made by the Assessing Officer or affirmed by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that in cases where lower appellate proceedings were ex-parte and there's a possibility of procedural oversight or communication issues, especially in the context of evolving technology, restoring the matter for a fresh hearing serves the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Satish Kumar Joon, has filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Delhi-43. The CIT(A)'s order, dated 03.02.2025, affirmed the Assessing Officer's actions made under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings before the CIT(A) were ex-parte, meaning the assessee did not appear or present their case. The assessee was also absent during the hearing before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should proceed ex-parte against the assessee when none appears on their behalf, given that the lower appellate authority (CIT(A)) also proceeded ex-parte. The assessee's side did not present any arguments. The revenue, through the Sr. DR, argued that the CIT(A) correctly upheld the Assessing Officer's findings because the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence to support their case. The revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s order should be sustained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 03.06.2025

Date of hearing 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-43 DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1072838067(1), dated 03.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 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.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) 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.

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, 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.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and I am 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, in the larger interest of justice, I 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →