AMAR NATH,SONIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SONIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5768/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 October 2025AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC, affirming the Assessing Officer's additions. The Revenue argued that the assessee provided no explanation or evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified, considering potential communication issues with the new faceless assessment system.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 29.10.2025Pronounced: 29.10.2025

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Amar Nath, Omaxe City, Sonipat Sonipat PAN: AIUPA9685P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2025-26/1078494149(1), dated 15.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in its order has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowance/addition herein.

3.

The Revenue 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.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and is 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, I 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 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →