Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee remained ex-parte before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was proceeded ex-parte by the CIT(A) and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to faceless hearings. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity for fresh adjudication when they remained ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to potential communication issues.
Sections Cited
144, 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 : 2012-13 Khem Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1721, NH-3, Nehru Colony, Ward-1(4), Faridabad, Haryana-121005 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANGPC1051J 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 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-12, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070447668(1) dated 19.11.2024, in proceedings u/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)’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 I 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.