Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was against an order passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps and the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, the assessee could not appear to present facts in lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the challenges with virtual hearings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer due to communication gaps and issues with virtual hearing mechanism.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT (A), Ranchi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1073328892(1), dated 16.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. 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, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.
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. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.