Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's seven appeals arose from orders of the CIT(A) which were passed ex-parte. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide explanations or evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte assessment might lead to communication gaps. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) rightly proceeded ex-parte without considering potential communication gaps between the taxpayer and their representatives.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Date of hearing 13.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.11.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s seven appeals to 4230/Del/2025 for assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, all dated 12.03.2025, passed in case nos. 26/10215/2019-20, 26/10225/2019-20, 10231/2019-20, 10237/2019-20, 10243/2019-20, 10249/2019-20 and 10256/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s.
143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Delay of 32 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) in its detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.
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.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands 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, auditor and the arguing counsel in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out.
Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant seven appeals back to the CIT(A) for his 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.