NAVEEN SONI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD NO 51(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8942/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 January 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, there was a possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced system of faceless hearings. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The appeal was to be adjudicated within three effective opportunities, with the rider that the taxpayer would plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes only. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Naveen Soni, has filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order, dated 19.09.2025, was passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal arises from proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer, with the CIT(A)/NFAC affirming the Assessing Officer's disallowances and additions. During the hearing, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's discussion proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, and there was no substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was represented by Ms. Agni Chaudhary, Adv. & Shri Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Adv., and the Revenue by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR. The appeal was heard on 28.01.2026 and pronounced on the same date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee and affirming the Assessing Officer's additions/disallowances without a substantive adjudication as required under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and statutory compliance). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee's counsel regarding the merits of the additions/disallowances. However, the Tribunal's observation that the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte implies a potential lack of opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR, argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting their case, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Agni Chaudhary, Adv. &, Shri Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Adv
Hearing: 28.01.2026Pronounced: 28.01.2026

Date of hearing 28.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080920346(1), dated 19.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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 Act requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

3.

Mr. Manoj 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.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing discussion 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.

5.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back 2 | P a g e 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.

6.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →