Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which was passed ex-parte. The assessee did not appear at the hearing before the Tribunal, and the Revenue's representative argued in support of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte finding.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and there might have been communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte proceedings and potential communication gaps.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Atul Pundhir, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-821, Sangam Vihar, Ward-28(5), New Delhi-110062 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKLPP5096J Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058974380(1) dated 21.12.2023, 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 Atul Pundhir disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we find any substantive 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.
Sh. Rajesh Tiwari 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.
We 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, we 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.