Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that due to a communication gap between the senior citizen assessee and her tax consultant, no compliance could be made at the Assessing Officer (AO) or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) levels. The AR sought another opportunity to present the facts to the AO for proper determination of taxable income.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was passed ex-parte. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether an ex-parte assessment order should be set aside and the case remanded for fresh assessment when non-compliance was due to a communication gap and the assessee's unfamiliarity with tax laws.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Nandini Bandyopadhyay, 203, Block-A, Nilkamal, South Dumdum, Laketown, Laketown S.O. North 24, Parganas West Bengal- 700089 [PAN: AXAPB2868G] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1), Kolkata, Ayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata - 700031 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Smt. Ishani Roy, AR Department represented by : Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 25.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 27.08.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal arises from order dated 24.04.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
1.1 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR pointed out that due to a communication gap between the assessee and her tax consultant, no worthwhile compliance could be made either at the level of Ld. AO or at the level of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee was a senior citizen and was not conversant with taxation laws and hence was wholly Nandini Bandyopadhyay depend on the tax consultant. The Ld. AR requested for one more chance to present the facts before the Ld. AO so that the correct taxable income could be determined.
1.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have carefully considered the documents before us and have heard the Ld. AR/DR. It is felt that in the interests of substantive justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it is passed in an exparte manner, and the matter is deemed fit to be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27.08.2025