Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The case was called twice and proceeded ex-parte as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and observed that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the lower appellate authority when proceedings were conducted ex-parte due to potential communication gaps in the faceless hearing system.
Sections Cited
143(3), 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 : 2016-17 SJB Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 50-A, 3rd & 4th Floor, Hauz Khas, Circle-23(2), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AASCS5291A 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 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061840450(1) dated 01.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It 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.