SUSHIL BHAGAT,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS),, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 122/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case, with the rider that they must plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose against an order involving proceedings under section 143(3). The lower authorities disallowed the assessee's claim of market-to-market losses. The CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear in lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Sh. Sushil Bhagat, 54, Chander Lok Enclave, (Appeals), Pitampura, Delhi Delhi PAN: AAAPB1391B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rohtas Agarwal, CA Department by Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.05.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070408517(1), dated 18.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have disallowed/added the assessee’s claim of market to market “MTM” loses of Rs.1,52,97,968/-, during the course of assessment framed on 29.12.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

Faced with this situation, we notice that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC appears to have proceeded ex-parte against the assessee on the ground that it had failed to avail various opportunities of hearing in the course of lower appellate proceedings. Learned counsel invites our attention to pages 3 to 4 in the lower appellate discussion, wherein the assessee has been held to have only “gathering the papers”. His case accordingly is that it was on account of various communication gaps that the assessee could not plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings on account of circumstances beyond his control. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →