VINOD KANSAL,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1632/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2009-10Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism and also a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 arose from an order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC due to alleged communication gaps and non-compliance with procedural requirements, allowing the assessee to present all facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 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

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Vinod Kansal, Vs DCIT, 14, Model Town, Northex, Circle-34(1), Delhi-110009 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGPK5469F Assessee by: Sh. Sahil Gupta, 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 2009-10, arises against the Addl. / JCIT(A)-2, Ahmadabad’s DIN & order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072383586(1) dated 21.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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.

Vinod Kansal 4. 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →