Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that due to communication gaps and ineffective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, the assessee could not effectively plead its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present its case before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps, warranting a restoration of the appeal.
Sections Cited
153C, 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 : 2011-12 Amrit Bottlers (P) Ltd., Vs DCIT, A-3, 7th Floor, Madhusudan Central Circle-6, Apartments, P-18, Dobson Lane, New Delhi-110002 Howrah, West Bengal-711101 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCA4794J Assessee by : Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071098043(1) dated 11.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 153C 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 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 appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.