Loading judgment…
Facts
A batch of seven appeals filed by Naresh Kumar Sharma against the DCIT was heard. The assessee claimed that communication gaps at various levels prevented them from presenting all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that the possibility of communication gaps could not be ruled out and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without due adherence to procedural requirements and communication gaps hindering the assessee's right to be heard.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER The instant batch of seven appeals pertains to single assessees herein namely, Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
Sl. N o. A.Y . ITA N os . Ap pe ll an t Re sp on den t O rde r pa ss e d ag ains t Pro ce e di ngs u / s 1- 7 2 01 2- 1 3 t o 32 1 7 to N a res h DCIT C IT( A) - 2 9, N ew D elhi 153 C r.w.s . 2 01 4- 1 5 , 32 2 1/ Del /2 02 5 Ku mar In D IN & orde r N o. 143 ( 3) 2 01 6- 1 7 , 32 2 3 & Sh arm a ITB A/APL/ S/ 9 1 /2 0 24 - 2 01 7- 1 8 , 32 2 4/ Del /2 02 5 2 5/ 1 0 74 42 657 3 (1) , 2 01 9- 2 0 & 1 07 4 4 276 34(1) , 2 02 0- 2 1 1 07 4 4 285 61(1) , 1 07 4 4 292 40(1) , 1 07 4 4 310 71(1) , 1 07 4 4 299 95(1) & 1 07 4 4 304 10(1) Date d 12 .0 3.2 0 25
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 to 3221, 3223 & 3224/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar Sharma 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 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, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.