Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) related to assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. The appeals were filed with a delay of 169 days, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that due to communication gaps and issues with the virtual hearing mechanism, the assessee could not effectively present their case. The Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded them back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 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 : 2011-12 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ashok Goel, Vs ACIT, N-49, Second Floor, Block-N, Central Circle-28, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEKPG3958B Assessee by: Sh. Manish Upneja, CA & Sh. Sanju, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 1624/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14, arise against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10073 & 10081/2019-20 dated 24.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Delay of 169 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).
Ashok Goel 4. 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.