Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arose from an order under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3). The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps and issues with virtual hearing, they could not effectively present their case before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism and also observed a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prejudiced due to communication gaps and procedural lapses in the lower appellate proceedings, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/s Singhal Polytech Ltd., Vs DCIT, 364-A, Main Sadar Bazar, Circle-23(2), Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACS0066K Assessee by : Sh. Garvit Batra, CA & Sh. Abhishek Mathur, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055128095(1) dated 14.08.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) 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
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.