Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against an order passed by the Addl./JCIT(A). The case was called twice, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The learned CIT(A)'s discussion had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte proceedings before the CIT(A) and the subsequent order were sustainable without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, and if the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.
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 : 2012-13 Akhil Bansal, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Rajeshar Bansal, Hospital Ward-1(4), Road, Shamli Shamli, Uttar Pradesh-247776 Uttar Pradesh-247776 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHRPB3333P Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Kochi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074472269(1) dated 13.03.2025, 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. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)’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 Shri Akhil Bansal lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A) to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav 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) 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.