Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arose against an order from the CIT(A) dated 24.10.2025. The proceedings involved section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case was proceeded with ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to plead their case.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case after the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 2, Pune’s order dated 24.10.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081983190(1), dated 24.10.2025, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in its detailed discussion has proceeded ex- parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.
The Revenue during the course of hearing vehemently argues in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case.
I have given my 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 in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out.
Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the cases at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.