Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
271, 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 : 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.