Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC, which affirmed the Assessing Officer's additions made under proceedings initiated under Section 144 read with Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. Despite the assessee not appearing before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless assessment system.
Held
In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte without framing points of determination as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
1. Whether an ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC without framing points of determination, particularly in faceless proceedings, should be sustained. 2. Whether, in the interest of justice, an appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication when communication gaps are plausible.
Sections Cited
144, 142(1), 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 Jagdeep Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1006, Sector-11, HUDA, Panipat Ward-2, Haryana-132103 Panipat, Haryana-132103 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGUPG5670J 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/250/2023-24/1055283595(1) dated 21.08.2023, in proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) 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.