Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's three appeals were filed against the common order of the CIT(A). The appeals arose from proceedings under Section 147 and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal observed that there might have been communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether there were communication gaps leading to lack of proper representation and compliance with statutory requirements in the lower appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra
Asstt. Year: 2020-21 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Anil Jain, Vs ACIT, 737/22, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, Central Circle-2, New Delhi-110005 Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABLPJ2420R Assessee by: Sh. Tushar Goel, CA Revenue by : Sh. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s three appeals 589 & 590/Del/2025, for Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s common order dated 30.10.2024, in case Nos. 11043, 10930 & 10153/CIT(A) GGN’s in proceedings u/s 147 & 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files 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).
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 appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication on merits, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
No other ground has been raised or pressed before us.