Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2017-18, which arose from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions without a substantive appellate adjudication as contemplated under Section 250(6).
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte proceedings might have been due to communication gaps in the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether ex-parte proceedings by CIT(A) in the faceless assessment system, without proper adjudication, warrant remanding the case for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Anil Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, 99, Shiva Market, Pitampura, Civic Centre, Delhi-110034 Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGPJ4137K Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070680989(1) dated 27.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 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)/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
Mr. Sanjay 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.
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.
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.