Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The case was called twice, but the assessee did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte and that there might have been communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) rightly proceeded ex-parte against the assessee without proper adjudication, and if the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Nishi Shabana Kauser, Vs Income Tax Officer, Room No. 1, Block-III, Young Ward-54(1), Woman Ass Avenue, 21, Saket, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BIGPK5301P Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077158212(1) dated 18.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She 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 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
Mr. Manoj Kumar 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.
I 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, I 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 taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.