NUSRAT BANKA,NEW DELHI vs. AO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5557/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was passed ex-parte and lacked substantive adjudication. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and the assessee being an NRI, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was proceeded ex-parte as none appeared on their behalf. A delay of 39 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC is sustainable, and if the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.02.2026Pronounced: 05.02.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076190365(1) dated 14.05.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Delay of 39 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Nusrat Banka 4. 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 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.

5.

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra 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.

6.

We have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A)/NFAC has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, an NRI, 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.

Nusrat Banka 7. Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →