GULSHAN KUMAR KHETERPAL,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 936/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, which was made ex-parte. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside due to potential communication gaps and lack of substantive adjudication, and if the appeal should be restored for fresh hearing.

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: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar Kheterpal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-2/282, Janakpuri, Ward-48(4), Delhi-110058 Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANPK9107B Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071321345(1) dated 18.12.2024, 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 lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the

4.

Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma 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 →