Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2018-19 against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that communication gaps, potentially due to virtual hearings, prevented them from presenting all relevant facts in lower appellate proceedings. Furthermore, the lower appellate order lacked compliance with Section 250(6) regarding the framing of points of determination.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and the lower appellate authority's non-compliance with Section 250(6). In the interest of justice, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide the appellant with three effective opportunities of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether communication gaps prevented the assessee from presenting facts in lower appellate proceedings and if the CIT(A) order complied with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
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 : 2018-19 Prem Chand Goel, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, 920A, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Income Tax Officer, New Delhi-110007 Ward-34(5), New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAIPG4781C Assessee by : Sh. Pratap Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069813558(1) dated 21.10.2024, 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 on merits, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.