UNISH KUMAR RAJP,GURGAON,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6655/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and that there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless assessment 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 assessment year 2015-16 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, and the Department argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to lack of explanation or evidence from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was justified and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: DR by
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 26.11.2025

Date of hearing 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, 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/250/2025-26/1079880346(1), dated 22.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s.

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest.

She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

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 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. Manoj Kumar 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.

I 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

2 | P a g e the newly introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.

6.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I 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.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →