JEETESH KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs. WARD 1(3), FBD, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4061/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. While the revenue argued that the assessee provided no explanation or evidence, the Tribunal considered that communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor, and counsel could not be ruled out, especially when the lower appellate authority also proceeded ex-parte. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be given three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case at their own risk. The assessee's quantum appeal (ITA No.4062/2025) was accepted for statistical purposes, and the same order was to follow for the consequential penalty appeal (ITA No.4061/2025). No specific issue was left undecided, but the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Jeetesh Kumar, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 4061 & 4062/Del/2025) for assessment year 2018-19 against orders dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. These orders were passed under section 270 and section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, respectively, affirming the Assessing Officer's actions. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal for the hearing. The CIT(A)/NFAC had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee in its order. The appeals were called twice, and since the assessee was absent, the proceedings were conducted ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should proceed ex-parte against the assessee when no representative appears, and the lower appellate authority also proceeded ex-parte. (Question of procedure and natural justice, turning on principles of fairness and the Income-tax Act). The assessee did not present any arguments. The revenue contended that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence to support their case, and therefore, the CIT(A)/NFAC's findings should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 4062/Del/2025 for assessment year 2018-19, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 25.04.2025 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1075821791(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1075821440(1), involving proceedings under section 270 and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He 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 findings that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting his case.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A)/NFAC 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

1.

2 | P a g e instant appeals 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 case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s “quantum” appeal is accepted for statistical purposes. Same order to follow in the assessee’s “penalty” appeal being consequential in nature.

More judgments on Section 270

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →