SMT. SEEMA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4387/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the 45-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the larger interest of justice. It was deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2017-18 against the CIT(A)'s order, which originated from proceedings under Section 143(3). There was a 45-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee's counsel contended that communication gaps and the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism prevented the assessee from presenting all relevant facts during the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal; and whether the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and issues with the virtual hearing mechanism during lower appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

Date of hearing 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Bhopal’s order dated 20.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074737398(1), dated 20.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 45 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice and in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

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, the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.

4.

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. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →