SARIKA AGARWAL,AMROHA vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6467/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2025AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. 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 2015-16 was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC after proceeding ex-parte. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee without considering potential communication gaps, and if the matter should be remanded for a 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: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 25.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

Date of hearing 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 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/250/2025-26/1079486325(1), dated 11.08.2025 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. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in its detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.

3.

The Revenue during the course of hearing vehemently argues in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case.

4.

I 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 in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out.

5.

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) for her afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the cases at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →