Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose against an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps and issues with virtual hearings, they could not effectively present their case before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal held that communication gaps and potential issues with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be ruled out. It also noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were conducted fairly, considering potential communication gaps and adherence to procedural requirements like Section 250(6).
Sections Cited
143(3), 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 : 2018-19 Suman Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, 192, AGCR Enclave, 1st Floor, Ward-48(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AARPS0324E Assessee by: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073423168(1) dated 18.02.2025, in proceedings u/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 justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Suman Sharma 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.