Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 was against an ex-parte order by the Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore, which affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions. The assessee also did not appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), leading to both lower appellate and ITAT proceedings being ex-parte.
Held
The ITAT noted that communication gaps could arise in the faceless hearing system, especially when proceedings are ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the taxpayer with three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case.
Key Issues
Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and ITAT, without substantive adjudication and in light of potential communication gaps in faceless hearings, warrants the case being restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Nitin Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1821A, Govindpuri Extension, Ward-29(1), Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. APNPA5358R Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081700186(1) dated 13.10.2025, 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. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex- parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing 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
Mr. Amit Shukla 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.
I have given my 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, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer 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 own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.