Bimla Yadav vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A) -8, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/ S/250/2024-25/1066175377(1) dated 28.06.2024 , in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 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 e merges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussio n 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 Act requiring the CIT(A) to first frame po ints o f determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

Mr. Amit Shukla 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, possib ility of some communicatio n 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 asse ssee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effe ctive opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his o wn risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered according ly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.