Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC in proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not adequately present their case before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal held that communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings, cannot be ruled out. It also noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order is sustainable when there are allegations of communication gaps hindering the assessee's ability to present their case, and whether Section 250(6) of the Act was duly complied with.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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 : 2012-13 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Saroj Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, D/o Sh. Gulab Singh Saini, Ward-4(1), 871/2 D, Mata Road, Ganga Gurgaon-122016 Vihar, Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CCAPS3956B Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals & 5392/Del/2024, for Assessment Years 2012-13, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057025471(1) dated 12.10.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
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
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.