Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order of the Addl./JCIT(A). The assessee contended that due to communication gaps, they could not effectively present their case in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and noted the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were conducted effectively, ensuring the assessee had sufficient opportunity to present their case, and whether Section 250(6) was complied with.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 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
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Yashpal, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 92/17, Dev Nagar, Palwal, Ward-2(5), Haryana-121102 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AULPP1532D Assessee by: Sh. Raj Kumari, AR Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Kochi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074409265(1) dated 12.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 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)/NFAC.
Yashpal 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.