Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals pertained to six Assessment Years from 2013-14 to 2018-19. The counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively plead their case before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was a possibility of communication gaps and a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order suffered from procedural infirmities and lack of effective adjudication due to communication gaps, necessitating a remand.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER Per Bench: The instant batch of six cases pertains to single assessees herein namely, Mr. Harish Chaudhary. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under: Sl. N o. A.Y . IT A N os . Ap pe ll ant Res po n de n t O rde r pas s e d ag a in s t Pro ce e di ngs u / s 1- 6 2 01 3- 1 4 568 6 t o Ha ris h D CIT C IT ( A) -3 , N o id a 153 C r.w.s . to 569 1/ Del /2 02 4 Ch ou dh a ry In ca se N o. C IT (A ppe a l ) 143 ( 3) 2 01 8- 1 9 Kan pu r- 4 / 11 0 1 7, 1 1 01 8, 11 0 19 , 1 10 2 0 , 110 21 & 11 0 22 /2 01 9 -2 0 D at e d 05 .1 1.20 24
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not to 5691/Del/2024 Harish Choudhary 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).
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance 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 CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s six appeals to 5691/Del/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.