Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arose from an order of the CIT(A) that was passed ex-parte. The appeal was heard ex-parte by the Tribunal as the assessee's representative did not appear.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte and that there might have been communication gaps due to the introduction of faceless hearings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte needs to be set aside due to potential communication gaps, especially with the new faceless hearing system.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Earth Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, 168, A.G.C.R. Enclave Opp. Central Circle-25, Karkarduma Court, New Delhi Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCE6878M Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s in case No. NFAC/2016-17/10285125 dated 18.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It 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 Earth Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A) to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta 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.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are 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.
Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the