Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for assessment year 2012-13 against a CIT(A)/NFAC order, originating from proceedings under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The counsel argued that 'communication gaps' prevented the assessee from presenting relevant facts during lower appellate proceedings, and a 74-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the potential for communication difficulties with virtual hearing mechanisms. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee three effective opportunities to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) due to communication gaps that hindered the assessee's ability to present facts during virtual appellate proceedings concerning additions made under Section 144.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Kanwal Jit Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shri Nanaksar Ashram, Ward-59(6), Near Wazirabad Bridge, Delhi Delhi PAN: DNUPS6648G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Department by Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070154273(1), dated 06.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of 74 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal, is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
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, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.
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. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore 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.