Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeal was listed for hearing, but the assessee's representative did not appear, leading to the proceedings being ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the faceless hearing system. To ensure justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate order warrant a restoration of the appeal for proper adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra
Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Rajeev Goswami, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 263, Beta-I, Greater Noida, Ward-5(2)(2), Kasana, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Noida, U.P.-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADCPG0606M Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 01.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071619323(1) dated 27.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded Rajeev Goswami ex-parte 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)/NFAC to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.
Mr. Om Prakash 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)/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