LAKHMI CHAND MUKESH KUMAR,BAHADURGARH vs. WARD 2, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1135/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had also proceeded ex-parte and failed to frame points of determination as required. Considering the possibility of communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, upholding the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions. The assessee remained unrepresented during the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the lower appellate authority was justified without proper adjudication, and if the appeal should be restored due to potential procedural deficiencies and communication gaps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 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

Hearing: 15.05.2025Pronounced: 15.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Lakhmi Chand Mukesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Shop No. 26, Anaj Mandi, Ward-2, Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Haryana-124507 Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACFL1261C Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071531478(1) dated 24.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

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 Lakhmi Chand Mukesh Kumar 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.

4.

Mr. Yogeshwar 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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →