VIKAS JAIN HUF,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-66(7), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2609/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, citing potential communication gaps in virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was granted three opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose against an order passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee could not appear in the lower appellate proceedings due to communication gaps.

What were the issues?

Whether the case should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and procedural deficiencies in the lower appellate order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 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

Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 10.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Vikas Jain HUF, Vs CIT(A)/Income Tax Officer, 108-109, Parmesh Business Centre- Ward-66(7), 1, Plot No. 20, Community Centre, New Delhi-110002 Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAIHV6645J Assessee by: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. 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 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073132558(1) dated 11.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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.

Vikas Jain HUF 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.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →