Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 challenged an Addl./CIT(A) order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel contended that communication gaps prevented the full presentation of relevant facts during the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and noted the lower appellate authority's non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant three effective opportunities of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
144, 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 : 2011-12 Jasbir Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o SSAR & Associates, Ward-2(2), 102-104, Prakash House, 4379/4, Gurugram-122008 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CDTPS1974B Assessee by: Sh. Mani Bhadra Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the Addl./CIT(A), Patna’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073311012(1) dated 14.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 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.
Jasbir Singh 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.