Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for assessment year 2017-18, which involved proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, set aside the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC due to alleged communication gaps hindering the assessee's ability to present facts.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072530589(1), dated 24.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. 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, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. 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.