ROBIN ARORA,PANIPAT vs. WARD-1, PANIPAT, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1689/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with virtual hearings and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2017-18. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts during the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower appellate order was passed without effective compliance to statutory provisions and whether the matter should be restored for proper adjudication due to communication gaps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),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

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072290158(1) dated 17.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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.

1.

Robin Arora 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 →