NAVEEN MAHIPAL,BIKANER vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte, there might have been communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 against an order that was passed ex-parte by the CIT(A). There was a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The assessee's representative did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte was justified, and whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Hearing: 17.11.2025Pronounced: 17.11.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10509/2019-20 dated 13.02.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) 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.

Delay of 249 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)’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 we find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A) to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

5.

Mr. Jitender 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.

6.

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.

7.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal ./2025 Naveen Mahipal back to the CIT(A) 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 →