KAPIL KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-70(1), DELHI

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.