AMRIT PAL SINGH VIJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 46(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It noted that communication gaps might have occurred due to the virtual hearing mechanism and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed two appeals against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2017-18, arising from proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. There was a delay of 103 days in filing these appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether communication gaps during virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) warrant setting aside the order and remanding the case for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026