Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps and the introduction of virtual hearings, they could not effectively present their case.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps and virtual hearing mechanisms, warranting a remand.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 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 : 2012-13 Hitesh Kumar Mittal, Vs Income Tax Officer, JP Street, Rohta Road, Golabarh, Ward-1(3), Meerut-250002 Meerut-250002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKJPM3157D Assessee by: Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073119392(1) dated 11.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 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.
Hitesh Kumar Mittal 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 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.