Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2012-13 against an order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. There was a delay of 419 days in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the larger interest of justice and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and procedural irregularities.
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 : 2012-13 Mr. Javed (Prop.), Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 17, Mohalla Pathanan, Ward-1(3), Muradnagar, Ghaziabad-201206 Ghaziabad-201001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. APUPJ4898J Assessee by: Sh. Dinesh, Adv. 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 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056334392(1) dated 20.09.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 419 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
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.