Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for Assessment Year 2013-14, which originated from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel contended that due to communication gaps, relevant facts could not be presented during the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and noted the CIT(A)'s non-compliance with Section 250(6) regarding the framing of points of determination. Thus, in the interest of justice, the case was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether communication gaps experienced during virtual appellate proceedings and the CIT(A)'s non-compliance with Section 250(6) justify remitting the case for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 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 : 2013-14 Satish Chand Singhal, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-24, Sector-30, Noida Ward-5(2)(3), Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201303 Noida, U.P. 201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABJPS2854G Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Malhotra, CA & Ms. Shivani Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072543442(1) dated 25.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.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.
Satish Chand Singhal 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.