Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed twin appeals against CIT(A) orders passed in reassessment proceedings under Section 147, with an 80-day delay. The assessee contended that communication gaps during virtual hearings prevented full presentation of facts, and the CIT(A) order lacked proper points of determination under Section 250(6).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, acknowledging communication gaps in virtual hearings and the CIT(A)'s non-compliance with Section 250(6), restored the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given three effective opportunities to present its case, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether communication gaps in virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) by the CIT(A) warrant restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication. Also, condonation of delay in filing appeals.
Sections Cited
147, 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 : 2018-19 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Anil Bansal, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-5/9, Miya Wali Nagar, Ward-44(6), Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110087 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHWPB9455H Assessee by: Sh. Rajat Garg, CA 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 & 1726/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/106949103(1) & 1069489157(1) dated 07.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Delay of 80 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 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.