Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 200 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. It was held that due to communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the matter should be set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the case remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication due to procedural irregularities and lack of proper hearing at the lower appellate stage.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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 Navin Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 212, New Cloth Market, O/s Raipur 94, 60, Ward-1, Gate, Ahmedabad-380001 Sonepat, Haryana-131001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJNPA0698N Assessee by: Sh. Chetan Aggarwal, CA 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/250/2024-25/1066021588(1) dated 25.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 200 days in filing of the instant appeal is 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
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 Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.