S. KHODY SLIK TNISTING FACTORY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

PDF

ITA 1928/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 January 2026AY 2014-15Bench: the lower authorities. 4.1 Considering the submissions of the learned AR and the fact that the learned DR has not raised any objection to restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. 4.2 Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall decide the same a1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex parte order of the NFAC. The assessee's counsel submitted that both the assessment and the CIT(A) orders were ex parte and requested the issue to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The revenue did not object to this request.

Held

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex parte, and the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present its case. Considering the submissions and the lack of objection from the revenue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

Whether the ex parte assessment and CIT(A) orders, where the assessee did not get adequate opportunity to present its case, should be set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Sections Cited

250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, CA

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal before us has been instituted by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 04.06.2025.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee before us fairly submitted that both the assessment and the learned CIT-A orders are ex parte. It was further requested to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. The learned AR also undertaken the responsibility for making the necessary compliance on behalf of the assessee.

On the other hand, the learned DR did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that both the assessment order and the order passed by the learned CIT(A) are ex parte in nature. It is also evident from the record that the assessee did not get adequate opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities.

4.1 Considering the submissions of the learned AR and the fact that the learned DR has not raised any objection to restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.