Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. There was a delay in filing these appeals, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee contended that communication gaps during virtual hearings prevented them from presenting their case effectively.
Held
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether communication gaps in virtual hearings and non-compliance with procedural requirements justify setting aside the lower appellate order for fresh adjudication.
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 : 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.