Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, which affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances/additions. The case was proceeded ex-parte before the CIT(A)/NFAC as the assessee did not appear.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte order was justified and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Masroor Ahmad, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/20, Shormiyan, Near Chatta Ward-3(3)(2), Jambudaas, Saharanpur, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADGPM7232H Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078968680(1) dated 28.07.2025, 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. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
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 I find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the
Mr. Manoj Kumar 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.
I have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A)/NFAC 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.
Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I 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.