Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2023-24 arose against an order by the CIT(E) which proceeded ex-parte and rejected the assessee's Section 12A registration application. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and a delay of 638 days in filing the appeal was noted.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Considering that the CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte, the Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and decided to restore the appeal for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication given the ex-parte proceedings and possible communication gaps, despite the delay and non-appearance of the assessee.
Sections Cited
12AB(I)(b)(ii), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2023-24 arises against the CIT(E), Chandigarh’s DIN & order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1049038199(1) dated 23.01.2023, in proceedings u/s 12AB(I)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Delay of 638 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).
Maa Chintpurni Mandir Trust 4. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(E)’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby rejecting it’s section 12A registration application.
Ms. Amish S. Gupt vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(E)’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(E) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel 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(E) 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.