What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and found that the lower appellate order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed that due to communication gaps, particularly with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, they could not appear and present their case effectively before the lower appellate authority (CIT(A)/NFAC).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented from effectively presenting their case before the CIT(A)/NFAC due to communication gaps and whether the lower appellate order complied with statutory requirements.

Mamta, Rohtak vs ITO | s.144 | ITAT Delhi 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 27.05.2025Pronounced: 27.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mamta, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1487/20, Bhagwan Colony, Ward-3, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMOPM8507C Assessee by: Sh. Navin Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056755084(1) dated 04.10.2023, 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 CIT(A)/NFAC.

Mamta 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 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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/05/2025.

MAMTA,ROHTAK vs. ITO, WARD - 3, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments