Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the possibility of communication gaps and ineffective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal deserves to be allowed on the grounds of delay and communication gaps in the proceedings before the lower appellate authority, leading to a fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Anil Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 115, Dharam Kunj Apartments, Ward-36(1), Sector-9, Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AICPA2292C Assessee by: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075874472(1) dated 29.04.2025, 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.
Delay of 5 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
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
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.