Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A)/NFAC order for AY 2012-13, initiated under Section 147. The assessee contended that communication gaps prevented the presentation of facts in lower appellate proceedings and that the CIT(A)/NFAC order lacked compliance with Section 250(6).
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged communication issues in virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) by CIT(A)/NFAC. Thus, the appeal was set aside, and the matter restored to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication with three effective hearing opportunities for the appellant.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order was passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing due to communication gaps in virtual proceedings, and whether CIT(A)/NFAC complied with Section 250(6) regarding framing points of determination.
Sections Cited
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 Amarwati, Vs Income Tax Officer, Vill.-Chandawali, Ballabgarh, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACGPW2599A Assessee by: Sh. Ashok Kumar, CA 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 CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073619401(1) dated 12.02.2025, in proceedings u/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.
Amarwati 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.