SATINDER SINGH DHILLON,I P EXTENSION vs. CIT(A), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4389/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 2025AY 2010-2011Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A) involving proceedings under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps during the virtual hearing, they could not present all facts effectively.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer due to potential communication gaps in virtual hearing proceedings and inadequate representation of facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Injila Mulim Zaidi, Adv
Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1075257468(1), involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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.

3.

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 →