PANIPAT FRUIT AGENCY,SONIPAT vs. IOT WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4305/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 November 2025AY 2017-183 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 2017-18 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC, affirming the Assessing Officer's additions. The Revenue argued that the assessee provided no 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 re-adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 2017-18, 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/250/2023-24/1058335465(1), dated 30.11.2023 involving proceedings under section 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.

4.

We have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and is of the considered view that since the CIT(A) 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 instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective

2 | P a g e 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.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →