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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4062/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps as the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals arose from ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, affirming the Assessing Officer's additions. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee without proper communication, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

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

More judgments on Section 270

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →