Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arises against an order passed in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively present its case in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that communication gaps and the new virtual hearing mechanism could not be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were conducted effectively, considering potential communication gaps and adherence to statutory provisions like Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ruchi Raj Fibres Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Anil Khurana, Advocate, Ward-5, 1727, Sector-12, Noida, HUDA, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Haryana-132103 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCR6917P Assessee by: Sh. Sahil Khurana, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064987458(1) dated 18.05.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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.