Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose against an order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, due to communication gaps and the virtual hearing mechanism, could not effectively present their case.
Held
The Tribunal held that communication gaps in virtual hearings could not be ruled out, and there was a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was effectively heard and due process followed in lower appellate proceedings, especially concerning communication gaps in virtual hearings and compliance with Section 250(6).
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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 : 2016-17 Mr. Vilayil Satyan Pillai, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, F-13, Third Floor, Near Delhi Police Income Tax Officer, Society, Janta Garden, Pandav Ward-60(5), Nagar, Patparganj, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110091 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BIFPP2903R Assessee by : Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071541420(1) dated 24.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 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
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.