Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 arose from an order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The case was called twice, and since the assessee's representative did not appear, the proceedings were held ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had also proceeded ex-parte. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the introduction of faceless hearings, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority's ex-parte order was sustainable when the assessee did not appear, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication due to potential communication issues in the faceless regime.
Sections Cited
154, 250, 154
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 : 2020-21 Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, T1-201, Park View Delight, Bestech Ward-2, City, Dharuhera, Rewari, Rewari, Haryana-123106 Haryana-123106 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BWKPS7335B 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 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070312800(1) dated 13.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 154 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 Ashwani Sharma 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.
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.