Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC under Section 143(3), which had confirmed additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also failed to appear before the Tribunal, leading to ex-parte proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal, noting that the CIT(A)/NFAC had also proceeded ex-parte and acknowledging the possibility of communication gaps in faceless hearings, restored the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted three effective opportunities to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC should be sustained, particularly considering the potential for communication issues in faceless proceedings, and if the assessee should be afforded a fresh opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Hemant Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-701, Vills Apartment, DLF City, Ward-2(1), Phase-II, Gurgaon-122001 Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKPK9873D Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 09.04.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056467679(1) dated 24.09.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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 Hemant Kumar disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we find any substantive 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. Dhanesta 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.
We 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, we 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.