SHAFIK AHEMAD,HAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 3(5), HAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5822/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 October 2025AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A)/NFAC might be due to communication gaps with the faceless system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 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 CIT(A)/NFAC rightly proceeded ex-parte against the assessee without considering potential communication issues with the faceless assessment system.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

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

Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, 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/250/2024-25/1075130095(1), dated 27.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →