MAYA AND CO.,ALMORA vs. DCIT, HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 135/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte and that there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, and the revenue argued that the appeal should be dismissed as the assessee provided no explanation or evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal when it was decided ex-parte without proper adjudication, and if communication gaps in the faceless system warrant a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 07.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Maya and Co., Vs DCIT, Talla DanyaDharanaula, Central Circle, Almora, Uttarakhand-263601 Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263139 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHAM6723A Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059720469(1) dated 15.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

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 Maya and Co. disallowances/additions herein. Nor do I 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.

4.

Mr. A. S. Rana 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.

5.

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 and the arguing counsel involving the newly introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.

6.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →