WALIA AGNI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was to meet the interest of justice, acknowledging potential communication issues in the faceless regime.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were decided ex-parte by the NFAC as there was a communication gap. The assessee claimed this was due to circumstances beyond their control.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte decision by the NFAC was justified given the claimed communication gap. The need for a fresh adjudication to ensure justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s twin appeals, & 1028/PUN/2024, for assessment year 2013-14, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1063966453(1), dated 08.04.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); respectively. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
1. & 1029/PUN/2024 2. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)/NFAC detailed discussion; identical in 4.1, has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s quantum as well as penalty findings in issue.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that there was a communication gap at various levels i.e. the assessee’s office, it’s auditor and arguing counsel and, therefore, it was prevented on account of circumstances beyond its control so as to cooperate in both the lower authorities and more particularly in the lower appellate adjudication, as the case may be.
The Revenue has placed strong reliance on both the impugned quantum as well as penalty orders.
We have given our thoughtful consideration before going into vehement rival stands and are of the considered view that largest interest of justice would be met if the assessee’s twin appeals restore back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh adjudication as communication gap in this new faceless regime could not be altogether ruled out. We make it clear that our instant remand directions are subject to a rider that the assessee shall file and prove all the relevant details within three effective opportunities of hearing; at its own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026