TOYAB,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARDWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 70/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: 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) also proceeded ex-parte and lacked substantive adjudication. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the assessee bearing the responsibility to plead and prove their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was heard ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC, who affirmed the Assessing Officer's additions. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, and the revenue argued for dismissal due to lack of explanation from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower appellate authority properly adjudicated the appeal when proceeding ex-parte, and if communication gaps in faceless proceedings warrant a remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,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: 18.03.2025Pronounced: 18.03.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Toyab, Vs Income Tax Officer, 204, Village Gausain, Gokalwala Ward-1(3)(3), Majra, Buggawala, Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand-247662 Uttarakhand-249401 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AIUPT7405Q Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057911115(1) dated 13.11.2023, in proceedings u/s 144 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 Toyab disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we 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. Amar Pal Singh 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.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/03/2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →