Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not appear to plead facts in lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer due to alleged communication gaps hindering the assessee's representation in lower appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074285138(1), dated 10.03.2025 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.
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.
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.