AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 66/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte and lacked detailed adjudication as required. 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 2016-17 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. The CIT(A) also proceeded ex-parte, affirming the AO's additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal when proceeding ex-parte and whether there was a lack of detailed adjudication as required by law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 18.03.2025Pronounced: 18.03.2025
1.

This assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi's DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1063879393(1), dated 03.04.2024, involving proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee's behest. He 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 disallowances/additions herein. We further don’t 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. Rana vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting his 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 situations and 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →