Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which was passed ex-parte. The assessee did not appear at the hearing, and the appeal was proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the respondent's argument, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte. In the interest of justice and considering potential communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte proceedings by the CIT(A) and potential communication gaps.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Anju, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. DE 106/3, Ward No. 5, Ward-1(2), Prem Mohilla, VPO Tauru, Mewat, Gurgaon, Haryana-122105 Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BGYPA6224P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025 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/250/2023-24/1058491631(1) dated 05.12.2023, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Anju 3. Delay of 292 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).
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. 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.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Arora 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.
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
Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer 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.