Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The case was called twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and it proceeded ex-parte. The CIT(A)/NFAC's discussion also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte and the assessee did not present any explanation or evidence. However, considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in proceeding ex-parte and if the appeal should be restored for proper adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065533916(1) dated 11.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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.
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
Naveen Timber Pvt. Ltd. Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we 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.
Ms. Ankush Kalra 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.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view 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.
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 opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his