Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals for AY 2017-18 against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. There was a delay of 103 days in filing these appeals, which was condoned. The assessee claimed that communication gaps prevented them from presenting their case effectively.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case due to communication gaps in virtual hearings, and if the lower appellate order complied with statutory requirements.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sh. Amrit Pal Singh Vij, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-121, West Patel Nagar, Ward-46(2), New Delhi-110015 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAZPS5616D Assessee by: Sh. K. R. Manjani, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Aswani, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 3840/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062480993(1) dated 12.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Delay of 103 days in filing of the instant appeals are condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
& 3840/Del/2024 Amrit Pal Singh Vij 4. 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.
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.