Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals (ITA Nos. 253 & 261/Agr./2024) for AY 2012-13 arose from proceedings u/s 147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear, and the proceedings were ex-parte. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's adjudication proceeded ex-parte and lacked a substantive discussion of points of determination as required. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte assessment was procedurally sound and whether the appeals should be restored for fresh adjudication due to potential communication issues with the faceless system.
Sections Cited
147, 271(1)(c), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These assessee’s twin appeals & 261/Agr./2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060022475(1) & 1060023053(1) dated 23.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
& 261/Agr./2024 Satya Prakash 3. Delay of 111 days in ITA No. 253/Agr./2024 and 116 days in ITA No. 261/Agr./2024; appeal wise, respectively, in filing of the instant appeals are condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
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 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.
Mr. Srivastava 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
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 own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals & 261/Agr./2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 06/02/2025.