KHAS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASANT VIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2213/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 November 2025AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps leading to the ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC, affirming the Assessing Officer's addition. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee without proper opportunity, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 24.11.2025Pronounced: 24.11.2025

Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072974830(1), dated 06.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It 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 finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →