Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals were directed against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to alleged communication gaps at various levels during the proceedings.
Sections Cited
147, 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 These assessee’s twin appeals & 2257/Del/2025 for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Kochi’s separate orders, both dated 12.03.2025 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074437396(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074425952(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 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, both the matters 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 restore the assessee’s instant both appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.