Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte orders. The appeals arose from proceedings under Sections 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear during the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority's ex-parte decision was justified, and if restoring the appeal is appropriate due to potential procedural issues in faceless hearings.
Sections Cited
144, 271(1)(c), 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
ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals in & 2358/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2012-13, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1074007194 & 1074008024(1) dated 04.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Cases 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 & 2358/Del/2025 Sunil lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC 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)/NFAC’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)/NFAC 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.