Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for assessment year 2023-24. The proceedings involved were under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The initial hearing was conducted ex-parte, and the assessee later filed additional evidence.
Held
The tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority did not follow the proper procedure of framing points of determination and providing a detailed discussion. Considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee and the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the tribunal decided to restore the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte proceedings and subsequent disallowances made by the lower authorities were procedurally correct, especially in light of additional evidence submitted by the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B, 250(6), Rule-29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessee by Shri Ankush Kasana, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 28.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2023-24, 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/250/2025-26/1081853541(1), dated 17.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s.
144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s as well as the learned Assessing Officer in detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee 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. Coupled with this, the assessee had also filed his additional evidence under Rule-29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as well.
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.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing discussion that since the assessee has now filed his additional evidence (supra), possibility of some communication gaps between him and his counsel involving the newly introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.
Faced with this situations, in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer for it’s afresh appropriate 2 | P a g e 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.
The assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 2026.