Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The case was called twice, but the assessee's representative did not appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new system of faceless hearings. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present their case, and if an ex-parte assessment by the CIT(A)/NFAC warrants a restoration of the appeal.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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
Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ish Kumar Arora, Vs Income Tax Officer, 5N, 11A, Faridabad, Ward-1(3), Haryana-121001 Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFSPA5684D Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069876975(1) dated 23.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “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’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
Mr. Manoj Kumar 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.
I 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 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)/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.