Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee could not appear in lower appellate proceedings due to communication gaps, particularly with the virtual hearing mechanism.
Held
The Tribunal observed potential communication gaps with virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer due to communication gaps and procedural non-compliance in lower appellate proceedings, impacting the assessee's ability to present their case.
Sections Cited
144, 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
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Randeep Singh Kang, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing Flat B6026, DLF Westend Heights, Officer, Civic Centre, Minto Akshayanagar, Singasandra, B.O. Road, New Delhi-110002 Karnataka-560068 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHEPK7272R Assessee by: Self Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/107215357(1) dated 14.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. 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, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the Assessing Officer.
Randeep Singh Kang 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 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.