Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals for Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 arose from an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities had declined the assessee's exemption claims under Sections 10(13A) and 10(14) due to insufficient supportive evidence.
Held
The Tribunal noted that communication gaps, possibly due to the virtual hearing mechanism, might have prevented the assessee from presenting all facts. It also found non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, especially in light of potential communication gaps during virtual hearings, and complied with statutory requirements.
Sections Cited
143(3), 10(13A), 10(14), 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 : 2019-20 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Kapil Kohli, Vs ACIT, C-393, 2nd Floor, Yojna Vihar, Circle-70(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHPK8583H Assessee by: Sh. Chaitanya Poonia, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 4423/Del/2025, for Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2020-21, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076064791(1) & 1076065015(1) dated 07.05.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the leaned lower authorities have declined the assessee’s twin identical exemption claims u/s 10(13A) and 10(14) of the Act; involving varying sums, respectively for the precise reason that he had failed to place on record all the corresponding
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
All other remaining issues are kept open at this stage.