Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not effectively present their case in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps during virtual hearings and a lack of compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order adequately addressed the assessee's case considering potential communication gaps and procedural compliance, and if restoration to the Assessing Officer is warranted.
Sections Cited
147, 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 : 2009-10 Mukesh Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o M. K. Bhatt & Co., CA, Ward-2(2)(2), G-7, Preet Vihar, Ghaziabad, New Delhi-110092 Uttar Pradesh-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BLRPM5736J Assessee by: Sh. Malav Goswami, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10, arises against the CIT(A), Ghaziabad’s in case No. 753279921030417-323/419 dated 30.11.2018, in proceedings u/s 147/144 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 learned Assessing Officer.
Mukesh Tyagi 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 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 learned 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/05/2025.