Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2011-12 against an order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The assessee's counsel submitted that communication gaps hindered the assessee's ability to appear and prove facts.
Held
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to virtual hearings and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to procedural infirmities.
Sections Cited
147, 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 : 2011-12 Rup Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Vill +Post-Ghori Bachheda, Ward-3(2), Noida, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-210310 Uttar Pradesh-201310 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CSMPS7684C Assessee by: Sh. Anurag Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069961227(1) dated 25.10.2024, 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.
Delay of 61 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).
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.