Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals arose from orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2017-18, concerning proceedings under sections 144 and 271AAC1. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism, the assessee could not present all facts effectively.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were conducted fairly considering potential communication gaps in virtual hearings and compliance with procedural requirements.
Sections Cited
144, 271AAC1, 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 : 2017-18 Vikrant Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, C8/79, First Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Ward-59(6), S.O. East Delhi, Delhi-110053 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AECPJ8431L Assessee by: Sh. Dishant Sethi, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals in & 2340/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/107321532 & 1073336375(1) dated 15.02.2025 and 17.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 and 271AAC1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
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 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.
& 2340/Del/2025 Vikrant Jain 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 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 appeals 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.