Loading judgment…
Facts
A batch of six appeals was filed by the assessee, Mr. Harish Chaudhary, against the DCIT. The appeals pertained to assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps prevented the assessee from effectively presenting facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order complied with Section 250(6) of the Act and whether communication gaps warranted a remand for fresh adjudication.
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.