Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing the lower appeal was attributed to communication gaps.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the appeal was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to procedural lapses in the lower appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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 Niraj Seth, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, D-167, Third Floor, Saket, Delhi New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMQPS7650G Assessee by: Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. & Sh. Subodh Sadana, Adv. 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 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072266174(1) dated 17.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 111 days institution of the lower appeal, the same is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Niraj Seth 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 Assessing Officer.
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.