Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 arose from an order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed that due to communication gaps, they could not present all relevant facts during the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and a lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the case should be restored to the CIT(A) due to communication gaps and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Sections Cited
143(3), 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 : 2014-15 Richa Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-1105, Golf City, Plot 8, Sector- Ward-2(1), 75, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, Faridabad, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BAEPS1057G Assessee by: Ms. Parul Durija, Adv. & Sh. Rajan Chutani, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A), Faridabad’s in case No. 10507/2016- 17 dated 22.02.2018, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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).
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance Richa Sharma 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 appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.