Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2021-22 was against an ex-parte order from CIT(A)/NFAC, which affirmed the Assessing Officer's additions made under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte, and the revenue argued for the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to submit explanations or evidence.
Held
Recognizing the ex-parte nature of proceedings at both AO and CIT(A) levels and the possibility of communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted three effective opportunities to present its case, with a rider that they must plead and prove their case at their own risk.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte affirmation of disallowances was appropriate given the assessee's lack of representation, and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Sections Cited
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 : 2021-22 Deepak Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-62/63, 3rd Floor, Mansa Ram Park, Ward-52(1), Uttam Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110059 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABIPY3297L 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 2021-22, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070426290(1) dated 18.11.2024, in proceedings u/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 Deepak Yadav 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.