Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeal was filed after proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel argued for restoration of the case due to communication gaps.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the case should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication 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 : 2017-18 Sheshdhar Pandey, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-5(3)(4), B-81, First Floor (Part-B), Defence Gautam Budh Nagar, Colony, New Delhi-110024 Noida-201307 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKMPP3263C Assessee by: Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067720331(1) dated 19.08.2024, 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)/NFAC.
Sheshdhar Pandey 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. 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)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.