AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 15.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.
In this case, right at the outset, the Ld. AR prayed for considering the fact that due to a communication gap between the tax consultant and the assessee, proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) could not be attended to and the fact of non-compliance is duly mentioned in paragraph 6 at pages 5 to 6 of the impugned order. It was averred that the assessee was not made aware of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and only for the notice issued on 13.11.2025 did the assessee move for an adjournment. It was requested that the assessee may be given another chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) and for that matter the issue could be remanded back to him.
The Ld. DR supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the facts on record had been duly considered while passing the order.
We have considered the facts before us the documents and have heard the Ld. AR/DR. It is felt that this is a fact-based case where the authorities below have to clearly bring out the factual aspects. It is seen that due to the non-attendance before the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order. In the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. While the Ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard, the assessee would do well to avail of such opportunities.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.