Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, which affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee without proper opportunity, and if the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date of hearing 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.11.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067457961(1), dated 08.08.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s 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 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.
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. 5. 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
2 | P a g e 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.