RISHI RAJ,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUGRAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's proceedings were ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The case was called twice, and the assessee did not appear, leading to ex-parte proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte adjudication by the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified, considering potential communication gaps in faceless proceedings and whether the case should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 : 2011-12 Rishi Raj, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 54, Vill-Sikanderpur Ghoshi, Ward-3(5), Haryana-122002 Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ATKPR2408L Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057418405(1) dated 26.10.2023, in proceedings u/s 271 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) 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.
More judgments on Section 271
- Baiju Nath Jha, Noida vs Officer of the Income Tax Officer, NoidaITA 4373/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Tai Angu, Aalo, West Siang vs Income Tax Officer, Ward, North LakhimpurITA 357/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Tai Angu, Aalo, West Siang vs Income Tax Officer, Ward, North LakhimpurITA 356/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Tai Angu, Aalo, West Siang vs Income Tax Officer, Ward, North LakhimpurITA 355/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Tai Angu, Aalo, West Siang vs Income Tax Officer, Ward, North LakhimpurITA 354/GTY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026