MUSKAN,DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE EXEMPT 1(1) DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5414/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism and a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2018-19 against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps and the virtual hearing mechanism, the assessee could not properly present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC due to communication gaps in the virtual hearing process.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Anjali Suri, Adv. &
Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Muskan, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-6/54, 3rd Floor, Sector-6, Circle Exemption-1(1) Rohini, Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADTM3683J Assessee by : Ms. Anjali Suri, Adv. & Sh. Shafiq Khan, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069121815(1) dated 26.09.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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

4.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →