Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a stay application against a recovery demand of Rs. 2,93,82,993. The CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, upholding the Assessing Officer's additions. The assessee claimed communication gaps prevented their appearance.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the stay application as infructuous and allowed the main appeal for statistical purposes. It restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present their case.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in proceeding ex-parte and upholding additions when the assessee claimed communication gaps prevented their appearance, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
We note that the learned CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee whilst upholding the Assessing Officer’s impugned action making the corresponding disallowance(s)/addition(s) in issue. We thus take up the assessee’s main appeal itself for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.
This assessee’s appeal is directed 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/250/2025-26/1081503590(1), dated 07.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A). The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.