Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arose from an order of the CIT(A), Faridabad, which was passed ex-parte. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal, and the case was proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte against the assessee should be set aside, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 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 Jagdish, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 110, Near Anganwadi, Mujeri, Ward-1(3), Neemka, Faridabad-121004 Faridabad-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANRPJ7047A 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), Faridabad’s in case No. 10482/2018- 19 dated 30.08.2019, in proceedings u/s 144/147 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.