SAROJ SAINI,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), GURGOAN, GURGOAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that communication gaps might have occurred, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's twin appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 arose against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps and the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, the assessee could not effectively present their case.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were vitiated due to communication gaps and non-compliance with statutory provisions, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
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.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
