SUSHMITA MAZUMDAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-69(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3314/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. While the Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide explanations or evidence, the Tribunal considered that communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor, and counsel could not be ruled out when an ex-parte order is passed. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities to plead and prove her case at her own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the disallowance/addition made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sushmita Mazumdar, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order, dated 28.03.2025, was passed under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowance/addition. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT for the hearing. The CIT(A)/NFAC had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee in its order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should proceed ex-parte against the assessee when none appears on her behalf, given that the lower appellate authority also proceeded ex-parte. (Question of law and fact turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). The assessee did not present any arguments as none appeared on her behalf. The Revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, argued in support of the CIT(A)/NFAC's finding, stating that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence to support her case before the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAND

Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075165115(1), dated 28.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

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

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in its order has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowance/addition herein.

3.

The Revenue argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)/NFAC’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and is of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor and the arguing counsel could not be altogether ruled out.

5.

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

2 | P a g e 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 →